Ask Dr. Drew - Dr. Aseem Malhotra Promoted mRNA Vaccine, Now Warns of Heart Risks w/ Dr Kelly Victory – Ask Dr Drew – Episode 162

Episode Date: January 5, 2023

Though he initially campaigned in favor of mRNA coronavirus vaccines, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra reversed course and warned of "a significantly increased risk from 11% at five years, the risk of heart attack, to 25%" after taking mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. 「 WATCH EPISODE: https://drdrew.com/12282022 」 Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a controversial British cardiologist, public health campaigner, author of several books, and writer of newspaper articles. He campaigns for people to reduce sugar in their diet, promotes a low-carb and high-fat diet, and encourages the reduction of medical overprescribing. Dr. Aseem Malhotra is an NHS Trained Consultant Cardiologist and visiting Professor of Evidence Based Medicine at Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. He is a world-renowned expert in the prevention of heart disease. Follow Dr. Malhotra at https://twitter.com/draseemmalhotra and https://doctoraseem.com/ 「 SPONSORED BY 」 • BIRCH GOLD - Don’t let your savings lose value. You can own physical gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account, and Birch Gold will help you do it. Claim your free, no obligation info kit from Birch Gold at https://birchgold.com/drew • GENUCEL - Using a proprietary base formulated by a pharmacist, Genucel has created skincare that can dramatically improve the appearance of facial redness and under-eye puffiness. Genucel uses clinical levels of botanical extracts in their cruelty-free, natural, made-in-the-USA line of products. Get 10% off with promo code DREW at https://genucel.com/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 The CDC states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and reduce your risk of severe illness. Hundreds of millions of people have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and serious adverse reactions are uncommon. Dr. Drew is a board-certified physician and Dr. Kelly Victory is a board-certified emergency specialist. Portions of this program will examine countervailing views on important medical issues. You should always consult your personal physician before making any decisions about your health.  「 ABOUT the SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. 「 WITH DR. KELLY VICTORY 」 Dr. Kelly Victory MD is a board-certified trauma and emergency specialist with over 30 years of clinical experience. She served as CMO for Whole Health Management, delivering on-site healthcare services for Fortune 500 companies. She holds a BS from Duke University and her MD from the University of North Carolina. Follow her at https://earlycovidcare.org 「 GEAR PROVIDED BY 」 • BLUE MICS - Find your best sound at https://drdrew.com/blue • ELGATO - See how Elgato's lights transformed Dr. Drew's set: https://drdrew.com/sponsors/elgato/ 「 ABOUT DR. DREW 」 For over 30 years, Dr. Drew has answered questions and offered guidance to millions through popular shows like Celebrity Rehab (VH1), Dr. Drew On Call (HLN), Teen Mom OG (MTV), and the iconic radio show Loveline. Now, Dr. Drew is opening his phone lines to the world by streaming LIVE from his home studio. Watch all of Dr. Drew's latest shows at https://drdrew.tv Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are live out of New York City today, and we appreciate you all being here. Today, this is a very special guest. Asim Malhatra is a cardiologist who has been a champion in terms of taking personal risk to try to advocate on behalf of his patients and his family and the people that he thinks have been vaccine harmed. So he has been very outspoken, and he seems to have moved the needle a little bit back in the United Kingdom, where they, unlike here in the United States, they are beginning to take a look and ask the questions that we seem unable to ask or afraid to ask because of fear of retribution and lack of research funding and all the things that you're going to hear about today.

So Asim Malhotra is somebody that I have deep respect for. I may not agree, much as I've said repeatedly, and Kelly and I tell you all the time, we may not agree on everything, but these conversations need to be had. Physicians need the opportunity to share their ideas together, to try to get to the truth on behalf of physicians. The only thing I know for sure about all my peers is we are the one group that is there to advocate for their patient, the patient. That's who we have in mind at all times. So let's get to it. Our laws as it pertained to substances are draconian and bizarre. A psychopath started this. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction, fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor. Where the hell do you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people.

I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real. We used to get these calls on Loveline all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. If you have trouble, you can't stop and you want help stopping, I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. Bro. Broke. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style,

there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Whether you own a bustling hair salon or a hot new bakery, you need business insurance

that can keep up with your evolving needs. With flexible coverage options from TD Insurance, you only pay for what you need. TD, ready for you. Markers associated with increasing the risk

of heart attack and probably even progression of underlying heart disease, and people have already got some heart disease, has been significantly increased risk from 11% at five years risk of heart attack to 25%. Now, that's a huge increase. If this is true, then it's very concerning indeed. But a whistleblower, if you like, contacted me to say that the researchers in this department had found something similar within the coronary arteries linked to the vaccine, inflammation from imaging studies around the coronary arteries. And they had a meeting and these researchers at the moment have decided they're not going to publish their findings

because they are concerned about losing research money from the drug industry. And there you see what is of such deep concern to all of us. Welcome, Asim Malhotra. Dr. Malhotra, thank you so much for being here. Pleasure, Drew. Great to see you again. And I believe you're out in the Pacific somewhere, at least the Mediterranean. And so I appreciate you spending a little time with us today.

So walk people through, if you don't mind, a little bit of how you came to this and what some of your insights were that got you to this point. Yeah, Drew, thank you. So first and foremost, I, you know, the background to me even coming to these conclusions, which I'll get in a bit more detail on the mRNA vaccines, is that I've been a very big proponent for ethical, evidence-based medical practice and informed consent. You know, the heart of being a good doctor and to improve patient outcomes is to use your clinical expertise, the best available evidence, and last but not least, taking into consideration patient preferences and values. So all my advocacy work, in a way, always comes back to that framework, if you like,

right, for vaccine medicine. And I've applied that framework to the issue of the vaccines more recently. But I originally was one of the first people, Drew people to take two doses of the Pfizer vaccine in January 2021. I did it in good faith because I thought I was going to protect my patients. I did not in any way think that these vaccines could do any harm, especially no harm to the heart. I was a little bit skeptical, certainly about the what the efficacy would be, because we know that vaccines for coronaviruses certainly, traditionally, even flu vaccines aren't particularly effective, but I didn't conceive of any harms. And then I went on Good Morning Britain in the UK in February 2021, to tackle vaccine hesitancy and explain rational and rational concerns around the vaccine.

Because a friend of mine is a film director, Gurinder Chadha. She was vaccine hesitant. She came to me for advice. I told her, listen, traditional vaccines are probably one of the safest pharmacological interventions in the history of medicine. And I didn't think that there was anything to be concerned about. And then things started to evolve over several months. The first thing that's really interesting is a colleague and friend of mine who's a cardiologist, very smart guy, one of the smartest cardiologists I would say in the country, very well published. And he said to me when I met him in April 2021, he said, Asim, I've got to tell you something. I said, what is it? He said, I've not had the vaccine. I said, really? I said, why is that? And he said, listen, first of all, he was low risk, right?

So he wanted to wait, he was under 40. But also he said something concerned him in the supplementary appendix of the original Pfizer trial that led to the approval of the vaccine. That was, there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and one in the placebo. Now it could be an anomaly, it's small numbers, but he said, if this is a real signal, we're going to have a problem. So he said, I want to wait and see what happens. Then July 26th, 2021, my father,

a very well-known doctor in the UK, honorary vice president of the British Medical Association, general practitioner, he called me up and he said, Asim, I've got some chest discomfort now. Obviously I'm, first and foremost, my expertise is in cardiology. And as you know, Drew, the best doctors are the ones that can make diagnosis from the history. I mean, 80% of the diagnosis comes from the history. And his history, you know, what he described to me was concerning. And I said, he needs to call an ambulance. And unfortunately, you know, within 30 minutes of that conversation, you know, two, um, uh, neighbors who were doctors had come around to see him and they, and then he had a cardiac

arrest in front of them. They'd call the ambulance in the meantime, but the ambulance didn't turn up for 30 minutes. It should have taken eight to 10 minutes. And there was a flat line. He was in a system and I FaceTimed and it was a lot of, you know, it was difficult for me to, to go through all of that. But I then organized a post-mortem and the post-mortem findings really were inexplicable. He had two critical stenosis in his arteries, two of his three major arteries had severe narrowness in them. It was inexplicable because I knew his cardiac history. There was nothing

major. We'd had heart scans on him a few years earlier. He was super fit. He walked 10,000 steps during lockdown. And I thought, this is odd. He's had a rapid progression of coronary artery disease, right? So what's the explanation? And at the time, the only thing I could attribute it to, but it still didn't really add up for me, was he under severe stress? So we moved forward a few months later, and this is where things, you know, alluding to that G-Bean used to be played earlier, started to paint a jigsaw for me, which started to look very disturbing. And that was, two bits of information came to me. One was, there was a publication in Circulation by Stephen Gundry, an abstract, which essentially showed when he was following up several hundred of his middle-aged patients, their risk of a heart attack at five years went from 11% to 25%

within eight weeks of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, essentially related to markers in the blood correlated with cardiovascular risk, which is a huge increase. But then about two weeks later, a whistleblower from a very prestigious institution in Britain called me a cardiologist and said a group of researchers there had accidentally found through coronary imaging studies that vaccinated versus unvaccinated there was a huge increase in coronary inflammation but it had a closed meeting and they said we are not going to publish these findings because it may affect our funding from pharma. Now he was very dist distraught. He was upset. I went on GB News to say this needs to be looked into. And interestingly, what you don't know is after that GB News interview, a few days later, they must have seen it. It must have got wind of it. The head

researcher, and this is unheard of. This doesn't happen. I've never heard of this happening. The lead researcher sent out non-disclosure agreements to all of the 15 or 20 people within that research group to make sure they would never talk about this ever again and sign these documents. So for me, that was sort of a journey. And then at the same time, we were then hearing, I was getting journalists calling me independently saying, we've had an unexplained increase in heart attacks since July. And Dr. Mohotra, what do you think is going on? And then I just started that I need to start critically appraising the data. So I spent several months, Drew, looking at that data. But just to add into this, because I know we're going to talk to Kelly soon as well.

As soon as I did that GV News interview, which went viral, it had millions of views, and then it was picked up in the States and other parts of the world not long after that a very I won't name them but let's just say a prestigious medical body that I'm affiliated with received a number of anonymous complaints from doctors apparently after my GB News interview that I was spreading anti-vax disinformation and bringing them into disrepute because I'm affiliated with them. And they asked me to formally respond. I was still grieving the loss of my dad. You know, all my immediate family members are now dead. And the closest family

members I have are in California, in Northern California. So I was going over there to spend six weeks to try and, you know, grieve. And I had to deal with this complaint, you know, over four weeks, which is quite stressful. And I got through that complaint. It was fine. I was left with a warning. You know, I didn't understand what the warning was for. I think they wanted to try and, you know, hush me up a little bit, just from one interview. And I thought, you know what, I need to look at this data myself. I've published in medical journals over the years on many issues in the BMJ and BMJ Open Heart and JAMA and Telemedicine about heart stents. This is what I've done as a campaigner. And I thought, I need to publish, critically analyze the data and publish it in a medical journal. I'd realized quite early on that there was a problem. But I also understood

that I couldn't speak about it in the way I wanted to speak about it publicly. I wouldn't have, you know, it's not going to be easy anyway, but I would have some protection if I got this in a peer reviewed medical journal, my findings. So I went through that process. In the middle of all of this, something else interesting happened is that even though we now knew at that point, Drew, I know you were aware of this towards the end of 2021, the vaccine wasn't stopping transmission. There was therefore no scientific justification for mandating it. And around that time, our Secretary of State for Health, Sajid Javid, actually came out publicly in Parliament and said, we are going to mandate the COVID vaccines for healthcare workers. And if they don't get the jab, they're going to lose their job. We've never mandated vaccines in this country, any vaccine for anything. I thought this was odd. But also, we're now talking about a vaccine we knew doesn't stop transmission. There was no scientific justification for this. So I then campaigned both publicly and privately to get the

healthcare vaccine mandate overturned. And we did that successfully. But one of the interesting things in doing that is I had direct access to the chair of the British Medical Association. I spent two hours in a conversation with him when I was in California. And I said, this is what I found. This is what's going on. You need to do everything you can to help the Secretary of State for Health to stop this mandate.

And he listened to me for two hours. And at the end of that conversation, Drew, he said this to me. And this is relevant. He said, Aseem, I've been in the health policy for a long time. I've been aware of, obviously, the COVID vaccines. I've promoted them. I've been speaking to chief medical officers of the country, medical. He said, nobody appears to have critically appraised the evidence the way you have in the last two hours of our conversation. He said, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits of the vaccine from the BBC. Okay. And

if you remember, Rochelle Walensky also came out and said that her optimism for the vaccine came from a CNN news report. In other words, that was almost verbatim reproduction of Pfizer's own press release, right? So that, you know, I think highlights a lot of the problems that we're facing is mainstream media has a much bigger impact on doctors' opinions than people are led led to believe so I critically appraise the evidence true and then my conclusions were very clear and I published this a couple of months ago in September after the rigorous peer review is that there is almost close to zero benefit now from the COVID vaccine and preventing COVID death and I'll break that down in a

second but the serious adverse event rates, based upon the highest level quality of data, Pfizer and Moderna's own randomized control trials are unprecedented. And there are at least one in 800, life-changing disability, etc. And they are constant, but the benefits are almost negligible. You have to vaccinate, for example, 7,300 people over the age of 80 to prevent one COVID death. And when you look at other vaccines that have been pulled for harms, they are much less. You know, swine flu vaccine in 1976 was suspended because it was found to cause Guillain-Barre syndrome in 1 in 100,000 people. Rotavirus vaccine pulled in 1999 for causing a form of bowel obstruction in 1 in 10,000. We are talking from double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial,

at least 1 in 800 serious adverse events. And the most common of those, Drew, are clotting abnormalities. So heart attacks, strokes, clots in the lung, pulmonary emboli. So these are really serious issues. And for me now, I've campaigned since I've published this article.

I've spoken in Parliament. An MP called Andrew Bridget only a few weeks ago, and I was invited to witness this in parliament in official speech. He basically cited my work and called for a complete suspension of the vaccine. And he talked about all of the driving factors that led to the fact that we approved a vaccine that likely should never have been approved in the first place because the original trial showed one was more likely to suffer serious adverse effects from the vaccine than to be hospitalized with COVID. And he's now going forward with this. And I think more and more people are being enlightened. But we still need to keep pushing to break the mainstream media, because ultimately the mainstream media, rightly or wrongly, has perhaps the biggest influence on influencing, you know,

basically let's put it this way. Sunlight is a very potent disinfectant for malodorous health policy, and there is no greater sunlight than getting an issue of major media attention because then 10,000 watt lights on the people who have responsibilities to act you know it becomes impossible for them not to do something about it so that's what we're trying to do and i know i've had impact over here in the states with fox news a couple of times you know times of india spanish newspapers but we just have to keep speaking the truth through to get this out there and so even if you stand back, because there's no debate about the increase in all-cause mortality. I mean, that's just happening. And it's reasonable to say, boy,

that increase could be, we're certainly zeroing in on the pathologies that are there, and there seems to be some endothelial clotting, something going on in that system. Is it COVID? Is it COVID plus vaccine? Is it lockdown? Is it booster? Is it some combination of all four? But for some God forsaken reason, just to ask that question, because we might find out that the vaccine is contributing negatively, people are being vilified for just asking that question. It should be the most important question in every system, in every country in the world right now. I don't understand why they're, I feel like the UK is slowly moving towards behaving appropriately while we are going the other way and sort of honkering down. But are

you moving towards trying to answer those questions in the UK? Yeah, so I'm glad you've asked that question, Drew, because I actually cover exactly what you've asked in my paper. So first of all, you're right, we have to look at this, you know, a lot of these excess mortalities, etc, heart attacks is often multifactorial. But we've got clear evidence of causality with this vaccine anyway. So it has to be playing a role, right? And it's going to be a major role in some people and less of a role in others, but it's playing a major role. There's no doubt about that. Before the vaccine situation even came into my cerebral hemisphere as being a possibility, you know, I actually predicted lockdowns would see an increase in heart attacks and strokes because we know from other data in war zones, after wars have ended, for several years, there are increased heart attacks

and strokes because of the stress of lockdown, for sure. But what I would say, before I answer the question about exactly what's happening with this suppression of information, if you like, or know, people being smeared for trying to speak out, is that when you look at the the data on where the cardiac arrests are happening in the heart attacks, the biggest signal from lots of different data seems to be happening in people between the ages of 16 and 40. Right. And you cannot apply really those statistics of lockdown stress and everything to a younger age group, which tends to be older people. And that data has clearly shown associations

with the vaccine. Very quickly on the mild COVID stuff, very interesting since we last spoke, the Times newspaper in this country a few weeks ago headlined with, even mild COVID linked to increased heart disease and strokes. Now, I gave a lecture recently, and I looked at the research on which that headline claim was made. And that headline claim had impact, right, negatively, because a very important GP I know is a friend of mine, he was taken in by that headline, because he read my paper, said, is he made sure it can't be mild COVID. So I went and looked at that paper published in BMJ Heart. And that paper's findings were this true. First and foremost, the headline did not match the research findings. They did not find any association with heart

attack or stroke in non-hospitalized people with COVID. And guess what else they found, you couldn't make this up. Within the paper it's written, we had an unexplained, we found an unexplained association with mild COVID and less risk of a heart attack. In other words, that research paper found that if you had mild COVID, you were less likely to have a heart attack. Yet the Times headline said the opposite. Now, this is essentially a form of capture of the media. You call it bad journalism, whatever you want to say. But in relation to people not being able to speak out, one of the ways that big corporations exert their power

is through something called opposition fragmentation. And this is historical. You look at big tobacco, sugar industry, is what they will do is they will do everything they can and put their PR machinery into smearing people who actually call them out. Right. And this is exactly what we're seeing. So if you look at the root cause, there's a really lovely diagram in my paper taken from another publication from some public health scientists, which is how corporations exert their power. And they exert their power by capturing politicians through the political environment, through preference shaping. So this is to capture the media, for example, philanthropic organizations, which define

the narrative by the knowledge environment environment so this is through funding research and we know most of uh drug industry we most most drug research is sponsored by drug companies right so that's another issue that's the most that is actually the most that is the most concerning thing i i'm worried about right now and i'm trying to figure out how legitimate or how significant that is but i i first became aware that our peer-reviewed process is somewhat adulterated when the Danish mass study had a lot of excitement about it. We were all waiting for the publication. It was New England Journal that picked it up, was going to publish it. All of a sudden, they refused to publish it. Then JAMA refused to publish it.

Thank God, my dear Annals of Internal Medicine finally did publish it because it was a negative study. It was a good study. It was a negative study. And they refused to publish it. I thought there's something wrong here. I don't know if it's funding, but there is something wrong with this process. And I think people are becoming, my peers are becoming increasingly concerned about that, where we're not seeing all the data. Let me do this.

I'm having some glitchy stuff with my camera here. Let me take a little break, and we're going to bring Dr. Kelly Victory in here. I know she's got a ton of questions as well, and we'll get right to that after this brief break. Want to give the gift that keeps on giving? GenuCell Skin Care keeps everyone on your holiday list looking young and refreshed. And who doesn't need that type of luxury,

especially over the holiday season? GenuCell has so many products that Susan and I love. Genucel's X-Fee Moisturizer locks in moisturizer on top of the serums, making dry spots a thing of the past, especially great with the colder climate and all the dryness of our skin, right? And with Genucel's Immediate Effect 2 Eye Cream,

you can see the results in as little as 12 hours, guaranteed or your money back. Susan loves Genucel's DFS Vitamin C Serum, the new Deep Firming Serum, as well as the Hyaluronic with C and Lactic Acid, which hydrates your skin and makes fine lines a thing of the past while hopefully preventing future wrinkles from forming. I am a snob when it comes to using products on my face. The dermatologist makes a ton of money for me. But when I was introduced to GenuCell,

I was so happy because it's so affordable and it works great. I was introduced to the Ultra Retinol Cream, which I love at night. All the eye creams are amazing. People notice my skin all the time and I'm so excited because it's actually working. Take advantage of amazing holiday savings by going to GenuCell.com and you will get 60% off with a special holiday stocking stuffer. When you subscribe to my favorites package at GenuCell.com slash Drew and all orders are upgraded to free shipping for the rest of the holiday season, we will get it there quickly. Use code Drew at checkout for an extra 10% off your entire order. That is Genucel.com slash drew, G-E-N-U-C-E-L.com slash drew. My guest is Philip Patrick.

He is a precious metal specialist, trains at University of Redlands. He has spent years as a wealth manager at Citigroup, and his current position is with Birch Gold Group. So gold has always been somewhat of a safe haven, particularly in times of great turmoil, much like our present moment, I imagine. Gold has always traditionally been a safe haven asset. Gold specifically has always been about wealth preservation, right? Gold has always held its buying power. You can look at as far back as you'd like in history and biblical times, one ounce of gold would buy somebody 400 loaves of bread. And today it does the same thing.

So it's a store of value. But I would say in times like this, as you mentioned, it's particularly important when you're dealing with things like 40-year high inflation, the air that's coming out of a stock market bubble, these times in particular tend to drive gold and silver up quite significantly. If things are different, the solution needs to be different as well. So I encourage everyone to get informed, and we have a lot of good information here to help your listeners. Just a reminder, I am not a financial advisor, and I do not give out financial advice nor investing advice. Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews, and thousands of

satisfied customers. Check them out now. Visit birchgold.com and secure your future with gold. Do it now. Some platforms have banned the discussion of controversial topics. This episode ends here. The rest of the show is available at drdrew.tv there's nothing in medicine that doesn't boil down to a risk benefit calculation it is the mandate public health to consider the impact of any particular mitigation scheme on the entire population this is is uncharted territory, Drew. Let's welcome Dr. Kelly Victory and still with us, Dr. Asim Malhotra. Hi, Dr. Malhotra. Thanks so much for joining us. I've really been looking forward to this

conversation. I have often said there is no more compelling a anti-smoking spokesperson than a reformed smoker. And I would think the same about you with regard to this particular topic. Honestly, there's something very, very credible and compelling about what you have to say, not only because of your career as a cardiologist and your knowledge base there, but because you began this journey with regard to the COVID vaccines very much on the pro-vaccine side, and you took it yourself. And therefore, I think there's something that's really credible and compelling about your current views. I've got lots I want to talk with you about, and I certainly want to circle back and get into the weeds a little bit on some of these issues about not only the corruption in the scientific community with regard to funding and what's published and what's not, and the character

assassination and all of that that's gone on, the element of censorship, which has been unprecedented. But before I do that, part of my job here is to get a little bit into the technicalities of really what we're talking scientifically. So I want to start with one thing. Drew has asked a question many times in the past, and I think it's a reasonable one with regard to what's vaccine, what's COVID, what's COVID plus vaccine, what are the other variables related to lockdowns and other things that you guys have been just talking about just pure stress let's look at one study that I think for

me was really a critical piece you know some critical data points and that's the study that came out of Thailand that looked at the vaccines given in an age group. I think they were 13-year-old to 29-year-old, I think was the age group. It's been a while since I looked at the study. It was 301 subjects. And what was important about this study is they did extensive cardiac workups in these people prior to them getting vaccinated. And they found that none of them had any cardiac abnormalities, everything from cardiac enzymes to echocardiograms, EKGs, you name it, and then following vaccination, twenty nine point four percent, nearly 30 percent of them had cardiac

abnormalities following vaccination. That study to me is sort of, I mean, it might not have been a huge study, it was 300 plus, and it was the only one that I was aware of at the time that did that pre-vaccination testing to look for evidence of cardiac issues. Why has that data by itself not been enough to convince people at a minimum that

worldwide we shouldn't be vaccinating people, you know, males under the age of say 40? It's a great question. I think the first, yeah, I think the first thing I would say is, is Moderna. So obviously mRNA, again, we come up to mRNA vaccines. I think the first thing I would say is, um, it was Moderna. So obviously mRNA again, we convert to mRNA vaccines. Um, I think the first thing I would say is there's two, two bits to answer that question. One is, um, as I said to Drew earlier, uh, given the juggernaut of pro vaccine, it's safe and effective. What I would say is clear misinformation over the last two years, it'll take a lot to overturn that. And one of the ways of overturning that is getting this issue major mainstream media attention. So it doesn't get mainstream media attention, you're aware of

it, I'm aware of it, some people are aware of it, but it's not really getting mass, you know, a distribution of two people in terms of that information, and therefore harder to then overturn, you know, the current paradigm. The second thing I would say is, and I'm being sort of slightly devil's advocate here, as a cardiologist is, you know, abnormalities obviously need to be defined. Now, as far as I remember, I haven't looked in that paper in detail, but a lot of those so called abnormalities will raise troponins, which is a cardiac enzyme, which is released if there's inflammation in the heart muscle, but can also be released from relatively minor things as well. I'm not saying this isn't minor. So the question then is, have we ever, and I think that

hasn't been answered, right? With other vaccines, traditional vaccines that have been ever, and I think that hasn't been answered, right? With other vaccines, traditional vaccines that have been used, has this study ever been done before? It may well be if troponins are the majority of the so-called cardiac abnormalities that get raised even transiently, it's possible, I'm being a devil's advocate here, that other vaccines do the same. They decided to do a study specifically on the COVID mRNA. I would agree with you, however, the fact that we're getting 29% or whatever else, at the very least needs to have a proper discussion. And people need to say it's not an issue, but it's not even being discussed. And again, I think this comes under, you know, anything and everything that has questioned the narrative in

the scientific literature about potential harms of these vaccines is being dealt with by medical authorities through, you know, there's conflicts of interest, we'll come on to that. But right now, when the evidence is now clear of harm, they are behaving in a way which is described only as I would describe as willful blindness. You know, this is a psychological phenomenon when where human beings turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe reduce anxiety a seam um i want to avoid conflict a little bit prestige yeah if i could i well i don't disagree with anything you've said so far at very minimum just to show you how how vacant the discussion has been you're you're what what a seam is talking about for everybody to sort of shorthand our conversation here,

what was detected was what is called subclinical myocarditis at most, subclinical myocarditis. And as he said, it wasn't even measured against other vaccine therapies, so we don't even know if it's a common thing in vaccines generally, but it would be subclinical. It'd be only responsible, reasonably responsible, to say, hmm, what is the link? What is the relationship between subclinical myocarditis and clinical myocarditis? And we're not even asking that question. It's the simplest question we could possibly ask. Let's just, for the sake

of argument, say we have detected subclinical myocarditis. is there any relationship between the one and two thousand rate we're seeing of clinical myocarditis or is there a much higher incidence and these kids aren't getting to those more significant clinical syndromes and are dropping out and dying or having other complications before they get there these are very simple questions and you're anathema if you ask them a hundred percent right and that agree true yeah yeah and and this is a quite this is a discussion and you're anathema if you ask them. 100%. Right. And then, yeah. And this is a this is a discussion we've had over and over, Dr. Melo, that that we are not having the discussion.

What is it? You know, I think you're being generous, calling it willful blindness. I think it's more than that. There's there's actually an active attempt to suppress that information. And certainly, anytime that I would post about or post a link to a study and say, isn't this interesting? This is something we should look at. It was deemed, quote, misinformation. And I was banned from social media.

So it's that attempt to actively suppress the information. But you bring up very, very valid points. And I have to say, I have to pile on, Kelly. Before you go on, Kelly, I just have to pile on every time we use the word misinformation, that that's not a word that existed three years ago. Every time it comes up, I haven't pledged to myself. Misinformation, when doctors had outlying opinions that I disagreed with, we had a word for that throughout my career. That word was interesting. Thank you. That's interesting. I disagree. Here's why. That was interesting. Thank you for raising an issue. The notion of

misinformation is a brand new moniker that I've never heard before the last three years, as well as the idea of there being narratives in biology. Biology does not have narratives. That's like trying to have a narrative about the behavior of a cloud. Biology is like cloud behavior. It's probabilistic. It's clinically based. There's a lot goes into the sort of the art of this that is not strictly evidence-based medicine, but evidence-based medicine itself has been hijacked. And this notion of misinformation has arisen, and we need to take back our practice of medicine is something I'm realizing acutely is necessary. Yeah, Drew. And on that point, I think two things to say, if you let me. One is, you know, we talked about this briefly before. I know in California, there are now attempts for laws to be passed where doctors who don't go along with

guidelines could lose their license it's always going through it goes into law so no they've been appealed but it's going into law by january 1st or january all doctors listen to this must say no right they can't they can't take out the whole medical profession. If doctors allow this to happen, you know, to quote Martin Luther King, it is a moral obligation for a moral duty for citizens to disobey unjust laws. I'm saying for doctors, they must say no to this because they will lose the meaning of the word doctor if they allow this unethical law to be passed. They must say no, right? They must do that.

They must stop this from happening. It is unbelievable. And coming back to them. Sorry, go on, Kelly. No, no, you go ahead. You go ahead and finish your thoughts. Yeah. So one really critical paper that I would urge everybody to read, whether you're a doctor

or not, is written from somebody I describe as a Stephen Hawking-like figure in medicine. Professor John Ioannidis, Professor of Medicine and Statistics at Stanford, the most cited medical researcher in the world, certainly one of the ones with the most scientific integrity as well. He wrote a paper, Open Access, in 2017 called How to Survive the Medical Misinformation Mess. And he makes some key points. And he says, most doctors are unaware of the fact that medical misinformation contributes to overuse, underuse, avoidable adverse events, waste, and missed opportunities for right care. And he says 30% to 50%, and this has been verified,

of all healthcare activity in the United States brings no benefit to the patients. And the reasons are these. Most healthcare research, most medical research, is misleading to at least some degree. In a previous paper, he said most published research findings are false. He says most healthcare practitioners are not aware of the problem. That's why we're not combating it. They believe what they're being told from their medical guideline authorities, whether it's the CDC or the FDA. And then he says they,

the third problem is they then lack the necessary skills. That's part of medical training. We can resolve that quite quickly to critically appraise the evidence. And then patients and families lack accurate information to make informed decisions when it comes to their care. And he says, those are the four major factors. And if people read that, you will understand the roots of this problem. And through understanding the roots of the problem, you find the solutions. But Kelly, as you said earlier, this, you said I was being generous with the will for blindness, I think you're right to some degree. I think the other component of this, which I'm sure you will agree with, around what's going on in terms of suppression of information,

which really is an attack on democracy, right? Suppressing people who want to speak out and speak the truth is an attack on democracy, is identifying the root of the problem here. The root of the problem is that we have increasing visible and invisible unchecked power from very big, powerful corporations, in this case, Big Pharma, whose legal obligations to produce profit for shareholders not give you the best treatment,

but will act in ways that have been described often by the preeminent forensic psychologist field, Robert, Robert Hare in this field, as being psychopathic. So you think about a psychopathic entity, I'm not talking about individuals within those corporations, I debated the CEO of AstraZeneca a few years ago in the Cambridge Union, very nice guy had dinner with him, sent me a book knows where I live. So I've got to be careful why say here. But but uh but you know

you know he seemed like a very nice guy but but the the system and these institutions make good people do bad things and that entity if you think about it that has control over politicians over governments over regulators that often behaves like a psychopath so deceiving others for profit callous unconcerned for the safety of others. What we are seeing, Kelly, in my view, is the downstream effect of a psychopathic entity having more and more control over our lives, in this case, specifically, in terms of health decisions. Well, absolutely right. And what that translates into from the patient's perspective is it absolutely eliminates the critical concept of informed consent. You cannot have informed consent as a patient. You have to wonder that whether your doctor has a gun to his or her head and that he or she is

telling you or saying what they're saying or suggesting the course of treatment they are because they are at fear for losing their medical license, fear of losing their livelihood, fear of being derided or otherwise excoriated in the public square, then you as a patient have absolutely no reason to trust in anything your doctor tells you, not because your doctor's an idiot, but because your doctor is under a gag order. This is horrific from the perspective of a patient. You know, I am obligated morally, ethically, and legally to tell my patients all of their options,

not just a certain subset that's been prescribed by either my practice manager or my government so very very frightening stuff and i think we can we can do a whole show just on this um i do want to go back you know go ahead you know consent consent that isn't fully informed is not consent at all and i think what's more dangerous to doctors losing their license, much more dangerous for not speaking out for their patients, is losing their soul. Losing their soul, much more dangerous to them, and more dangerous to the future of medicine. And even, you know, one of the things that my dad said to me, you know, before he died,

I said that in his speech, my dad was a very ethical man and shaped me in many ways. And in the speech that I gave at his funeral, I quoted something that he said. He says, when your child hears the word honesty, the first thing that should come into their mind is you, their parent. Yeah, this is what people need to really think about when they act. Would your kid be proud of you knowing this is how you behaved? That's it. Ask yourself that question and you will know what to do. Now, I agree. I have many colleagues who have said to me, you know, I agree with you, Kelly, but you know, I have a mortgage pay, or I'm the sole breadwinner, or I can't afford. And my response is to quote John Milton, which is, virtue untested is no virtue at all.

But you made some very, very good points about back to this Thailand study. And you're right. I don't think we've ever done a study, for example, that did cardiac workups prior to giving, for example, chickenpox vaccines or MMRs or any other vaccine series and to see whether or not perhaps those vaccines also cause some element of transient subclinical myocarditis that is inconsequential. I don't know. Hard for me to even let the phrase inconsequential myocarditis come out of my mouth because I think it's a, I don't think that necessarily exists, but you make some very, very valid points. Everyone, hopefully, who's aware of any sorts of vaccine adverse events

knows about myocarditis. The lay person, more people in the world now know the word myocarditis than ever before. But that is by far not the only cardiac issue related to these vaccines, these mRNA vaccines, in my estimation. We are seeing lots of things, not just myocarditis and pericarditis. We're seeing this huge increase, or I am and my colleagues are, of supraventricular tachycardias, elevated heart rates. We are seeing significant labile blood pressures, big spikes, transient spikes in blood pressures, some of which are resulting in things like strokes and others that are just symptomatic in terms of headaches and dizziness, but nonetheless, yes, labile blood pressures,

we're seeing a rash of sudden death, likely related to cardiac dysrhythmias, abnormal cardiac rhythms. Talk a little bit about that component. There's more, you know, you are sitting in the catbird seat. Talk about what you're seeing across the board in terms of cardiac issues. Yeah. Tease it away from COVID itself, if you possibly can.

Yeah. So absolutely great. Both points really important and valid. So one thing that I found fascinating when I was doing my critical appraisal of the data is I came across, it was a preprint publication that ultimately was published in the Journal of Vaccine, but a list was endorsed by the World Health Organization guys. This is at the very beginning when the vaccine was being rolled out, the very beginning of potential serious adverse events that could happen because of the mRNA vaccine so there is a list and people can access that list from the who and they base that list i'm coming to it in a minute on four bits of data they're saying that these potential serious adverse events could happen uh because of the

technology that was being used and new new technology that was being used, side effects from previous vaccines, COVID itself, and animal studies. And when you look at that list and you look specifically at the cardiovascular complications, anything and everything that could go wrong with the heart is on that list. And this is what we're seeing in the community. And this is what I've been managing. So you're right. Super ventricular tachycardias, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, cardiomyopathy, heart failure, heart attacks, cardio respiratory arrest. This is in the WHO endorsed list.

Now think from a medical doctor's perspective, if you're not aware of a potential diagnosis or a side effect, you'll always miss it. If every doctor had been sent that list saying, listen, we've got this new vaccine being rolled out. We seem to think it's going to be fine, but there may be these cases. Here's a list of things that if you have a patient coming to you and you can't really explain what's happened to them with through the history, then you must, irrespective, you must be aware of this list. And therefore you can ascertain, you know, through your, you know, your own individual assessment of the patient, that this played a role. Why was that not given to everybody? Right? And you're absolutely right. This is, this is doing all of those things, all of those things. And I'm seeing patients, I've managed patients myself, vaccine injured, and all of those,

most of those complications I've seen in patients. It is, it is, I don't know what the best word to describe what's going on right now, guys, with the fact that we are still carrying on and asking people to have this vaccine when we know there's almost zero benefit against the Omicron variant. And the harms are significant, unprecedented, and clear on very robust data. Now, talking about mild COVID, Drew, there is, you know, there was a, all of the data now most recently looking at that has not really shown any association with mild COVID. Now severe COVID, of course, can be linked to cardiovascular complications, but any, Kelly knows this as an ER doctor, any severe stress on the body from any infection,

and somebody's already predisposed can cause cardiovascular complications. You know, working in hospitals, the amount of patients I'd seen that come in with pneumonia, and then secondary, then a few days later, I get called by, you know, the respiratory specialist saying, you know, Dr. Mahocha, will you come and see this patient, you know, they had a bit of chest pain, we did a troponin illness, raised EKGs changed, and they've had a minor heart attack. This is well known, this is not new. So severe COVID leading to hospitalization, any severe stress on the body where people are close to death is going to trigger all these complications. There's not rocket science involved in there

and there's nothing new. But there is no evidence, zero evidence when you look at mild COVID and any significant complications relating to the cardiovascular system. There's nothing. In fact, there's a paper published, you know, in the, in BMJ Heart recently, you know, I think I spoke to Drew about this a bit earlier about the Times headline was mild COVID linked to heart disease and strokes, yet the actual research paper found the opposite, yet the headline news story was that. So there isn't. I think we need to put this to bed. There has been different analyses done. Israel, a paper published in Nature Scientific Reports, I spoke to one of the co-authors of

that paper, and they found there was a 25% increase in cardiac arrests and heart attacks in people aged between 16 and 40 associated with the vaccine, but not associated with COVID. There was a previous paper done during the whole of the first year of the pandemic pre-vaccine, and they concluded there was no increased risk of myocarditis with COVID in the first year during the ancestral strain compared to any other viruses, right, in terms of their increased prevalence. So, you know, this is a nonsense. It doesn't mean that there isn't myocarditis that exists, but it's no increase compared to other viruses. Absolutely not. No, this is a nonsense. This is part of the, and can I just say one other thing, Kelly?

In my view, a lot of this misinformation or this confusion, again, is being driven by pharmaceutical industry interests. Academic things to pharma are trying to publish articles to distract from the real cause of the problem, which is almost certainly the vaccine. This has happened historically before. It took 50 years. There's a saying, he that does not remember history is bound to live through it again. It took 50 years from when the

first links between smoking and lung cancer were published in the British Medical Journal before we got effective tobacco control. And that's because big tobacco adopted a corporate playbook of dirty tricks of denial, the cigarettes were linked to lung cancer and heart attacks, confusing the public, and even buying the loyalty of, dare I say, bent scientists. And one of the things they did when people started thinking that smoking was linked to heart attacks, they got publications and it went to the news that the reason that smokers were having increased heart attacks

was nothing to do with smoking is because they were stressed and stress was the driver and it was just a confounder by smoking. We're seeing this being repeated. The fact we're even having this discussion, Drew, about mild COVID, for me, they are winning to some degree. Right, right. And none of this could have happened. None of this could have happened, Drew. none of this could have happened none of this could have happened drew none of this could have happened without the cooperation of the mainstream media

and big tech because what hasim is saying is exactly we've had these same studies we reviewed with dr peter mccullough another cardiologist study after study showing that mild covid does not have any association with increased risk of cardiovascular complications over and over. Yet they will, you will still hear on a near daily basis in the mainstream media that, well, you have a higher risk of developing myocarditis from COVID than you do from the vaccine. Or my other favorite quote, they'll say that the vaccines, hang on, they will say that the vaccines, although they don't prevent COVID and they don't prevent you from transmitting it they do decrease your risk of serious complications and hospitalization yet there is nary a study

not one study that actually backs that up for for the vaccines period There isn't a study that shows that the vaccines decrease hospitalization or death. Well, I'm going to table that and just say I'm increasingly concerned about this conversation that physicians are having about how adulterated our publications that we rely upon for our data and our understanding have perhaps become. And my fear is, because this is kind of a new part of the conversation, and while I've seen the evidence and it does look spooky as though there is something going on, it risks us doing the same thing as somebody who disagrees with a person's argument and attacking them on an ad hominem basis. In other words, I don't want us attacking publications generally until we can really get the data together. And it's going to, I don't know what it's going to take,

but somehow we really build the case that what is going on, we say is going on, is going on we say is going on is going on so this doesn't come off as an ad hominem attack of medical publications generally you see my concern fair enough yeah i i agree i think i think i think i think we have to look at it yeah in an analytical logical way that when we look at studies, we have a hierarchy of evidence, double-blinded randomized control trials, replication, high-quality observational studies, moving further down the line. The problem we've got, and I see this as someone who also has been an expert in evidence-based medicine, is that a lot of the poorer quality studies that are funded by pharma, unfortunately, or linked to pharma, are the ones that make the headlines, the least

reliable ones. And then you've got more reliable independent studies that aren't getting the light of day. And therefore, things have turned upside down. And when you actually look at the totality of evidence, which is what I try and do, and we all have our own biases, of course, you know, the direction actually is pointing the complete opposite to what the narrative is telling us. And so what I have suggested, if someone appointed me, you know, queen of the world, what I would do is I would make it that the, don't laugh, Drew, they might. I would make the conflicts of interest that currently are the very last thing at the bottom of the 26-page research article are the conflicts of interest. In my world, conflicts of interest should be posted above the title of the study. I want the very first thing you read for people to disclose what the potential conflicts are so that I can determine as a to paint with a broad, sweeping brush that everyone who publishes in a journal is guilty of somehow fraud or being

corrupt or being bought off. But I do think that the conflicts of interest are something that should be absolutely front and center and not the kind of thing you should have to look for after you've read the entire study. Yeah, I mean, Kelly, I agree. And I think just to further this, I'm glad Drew's raised this issue because it isn't a small problem. Research misconduct and fraud is a major issue. It's a public health crisis. Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ a few years ago, he wrote an article where he had attended a meeting with many senior academics across very prestigious British institutions. And he'd asked the audience, how many of you are aware of

research misconduct or fraud, manipulation of data taking place in your own department by colleagues. Okay. A third of the audience put their hand up. He said, how many of you have reported it? They all put their hand down. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet. I know Richard. I met him recently. He came to one of my lectures and Richardard uh wrote an article in the uh the lance in 2015 and in that he said he had he said he had a chatham house rules uh meeting as in something where you're not allowed to disclose who said what with again some of the top signed medical scientists in the world uh organized by the welcome trust and he said from that discussion um there was a quote which he essentially put into the article and he said possibly half of the medical published literature is simply untrue and then towards the

end of the article he said science has taken a turn towards darkness the question is who's going to take the first step to clean up the system so i just mean this in general terms i'm with drew though as well i think getting involved in odd ad hominem attacks and that kind of thing isn't the right way forward. You know, other people may be doing that. They go low, we go high, but we have to highlight the broad issue and then figure out ways that we improve the system so we can all have better trust in medical journal publications. And as long as the pharmaceutical industry is sponsoring research and paying the regulator and lobbying governments, we're not going to get anywhere close to that, Drew. And that's really what we need to be talking about moving forward.

Let's take for me a little bit of a more of a global view here. People ask me, in fact, even while you and I are talking here, I've gotten a couple of texts from people asking if I think that you personally are moving the needle at all in the UK based on what you're talking about. What we are doing here in the United States is very, very different today, as I said here on December 28th, versus what you are doing in the UK and what they're doing in much of the rest of the world with regard to these vaccines. In many of the Scandinavian, I think all of the Scandinavian countries, for example, now have put a moratorium on vaccinating anybody under the age of 40. I believe even in the UK was now some months ago came out, the UK government came out and said that vaccines should not be given to pregnant or lactating women

or to women who are trying to become pregnant. This is COVID vaccine specifically. And I think there's been some retrenching in the government of the UK with regard to vaccines for children. Here in the United States, it's safe and effective, safe and effective, get your booster today, still for all comers. Why that difference? I used to pride myself that the United States really led the charge on healthcare, not feeling that way right now? Yeah, Kelly. So I think I would just call it corporate America, if you pardon me using that term.

I think when you talk about the visible and invisible unchecked power of pharma, I think they probably have more influence and impact in the United States than anywhere else in the world. And therefore that you're seeing the end result of that. When you look at the health of people in the United States, if I'm not wrong, I think your life expectancy, maybe you can correct me on this, but recent data suggests that life expectancy is starting to reduce in the US. Certainly in the UK, it's still in the last 10 years. It went down for the first time since 1996, from 77 years old to

76. So first time in 28 years. And chronic disease is increasing. All of us are going to die. But more important than death or longevity, in my view, for many people, is quality of life. And quality of life is getting worse too. So if we were doing everything, one of the things I say just to provoke thoughts in terms of the medical community, I say, if we were doing everything right as doctors, why is the health of our populations getting worse? Have you thought about that? Right. And one of the major factors, of course, is our healthcare systems are not really

promoting health, or we're making decisions on bad information or corrupted information. There's not enough focus on prevention. You system itself is now causing a regression in people's health mentally and physically. And I think the two of the major root causes behind that are very big, powerful industries. I pick on two in particular that I've, you know, worked on for many years and campaigned on exposing is the food industry and pharma, right? Poor diet, for example, now is responsible globally for more chronic disease and death and physical and activity, smoking and alcohol combined. And of course, in the US, more than 60% of the total calories consumed come from ultra processed foods, which got a multitude of data linked to many chronic diseases, independent of even weight.

We have 50% in the, you know, we are following, we're not far behind you in the UK, by the way. So this is what we really need to be addressing. We need less medicine, certainly less overuse of medicine, and we need more focus on lifestyle. And if that shift happened, then people's health would improve quite dramatically and population health would improve as well. Well, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I've said for many, many years, we don't actually have a healthcare system in the United States. We have a disease

care system and we're pretty good at the disease care, but we don't have any healthcare system. Hospitals only make money one way, and that's when you're in them. They don't have a lot of motivation to keep you out, and neither does the system in general. So it is, in fact, a big problem. So let's talk about where we are going from here. How do we get out of this? I teach a course on leadership in times of crisis. And the core of that is that people are unable to think critically or make reasonable decisions when they're operating from a place of fear. We know that we did far more damage to people's health, frankly, way before the vaccines were

rolled out. We did everything wrong in terms of this pandemic response with regard to people's health. We told them to stay indoors, not exercise, not get together with friends and family. We caused people to be really driven into the basement of fear, to live in that place of high anxiety and social isolation. It was really the worst possible thing we could do to people. People did not go and get routine screening exams. They didn't get mammograms and colonoscopies and follow up on their diabetes. Kids missed routine vaccinations and on and on. We truly did the worst possible things we could do. And I think it will be probably decades before we feel the full brunt of it or understand exactly

what we did to people, particularly children. How do we get out of this? You're not just a cardiologist, you also are an ethicist. And you have a very moral and ethical way of looking at your obligation as a clinician. And I appreciate that. So how do we back our way out? Yeah, it's a really important question. So I think there's so we have to, there's a mountain we have to move, right? We are we are, we are battling this mountain that is stopping information from being disseminated. And that mountain, there's actually a very interesting approach structure that was developed in Thailand called the triangle that moves a mountain. And that really, the mountain represents a difficult obstacle.

This is a difficult obstacle. Let's just take, for example, the whole issue about the vaccine and mRNA vaccines, and we can apply that to many other things. So first and foremost, there are three sort of components of that triangle. One is the social movement. One is the evidence base, and one is political. The politicians are important, unfortunately, even though they don't always act ethically, because they have control over policies, over laws, over things that are

going on in terms of mandates, for example. But I think most people want to do the right thing, and I think most people are either ignorant or have the illusion of knowledge. Okay. So, but the, the, the key is to disseminate clear, concrete, independent information based upon values. And we use social media and we use mainstream media. This conversation already, I'm sure will have impact. Okay. That people are hearing something that is hopefully going to open their eyes, get them thinking. And that information spreads. We just have to keep pushing that, to be honest, Kelly, to disseminate the truth, hopefully inspire people to act courageously, think about acting virtuously, think about doing the right thing when it comes to the medical profession, for example, remember that their primary duty is to patients. And the more we

disseminate that information, then we are advocates for truth, for transparency, for democracy. And ultimately, I think the bubble will burst that we get to a point where the system, you know, will have to transform itself. I think that's the only thing we can do. There's a great quote in one of my lectures, it's from the second president of the United States, John Adams, and he says that the preservation of the means of knowledge amongst the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country. So, you know, if we come from a place of values, we speak the truth, and we also have to be compassionate.

You know, I'm with you in the sense that, um, I think it's very easy to get angry and it's easy to get upset with people who aren't enlightened, who have an opposite view to us, who haven't seen what we have seen and don't know what we know, and may also you know, engage in aggressive behavior towards us because changing one's mind is one of the most terrifying experiences one can experience. Sorry, one can go through. And we are having to change a lot of people's minds, which means we have to try and be compassionate when we communicate that information. And if we do that, I honestly have faith that we will get to a better place.

But we can't be complacent, Kelly. We have to keep going. You know, democracy is not a free ride. And, and wisdom without courage is fruitless. So it means we have to stand up even at great personal risk. One of the people that I've become inspired by in terms of a lot of his rhetoric, and what he says, is Jordan Peterson. And something that he said that resonated with me is that you have to understand to speak the truth.

It's not safe to speak, but it's even less safe to not speak the truth. Because the longer you leave something, all these people are scared of speaking out at great personal risk, it will only get bigger and bigger. And the problem becomes so big that it becomes almost impossible to deal with. And, you know, in broad terms right now, with the fact that people are increasingly losing access to the truth and even a capacity for empathy when it comes to conversations, that's leading us down a path to hell. And we need to redeem the world from hell. And the only way we redeem the world from hell is that people are, you know people are courageous enough to speak the truth. Well, that's why I started at the beginning by saying, and I truly mean this, I think you are a great role model because you had the courage to change your stance on something.

And frankly, Drew has as well. And I appreciate both of you for doing that. We are hopefully emulating to people what it is to actually look at the data, be exposed to new information and say, okay, yeah, I changed my mind about that. Kelly, that was what we always did after the rollout of a new treatment. We would look at it. We'd reassess it. We'd talk amongst ourselves. We'd criticize each other what we always did after the rollout of a new treatment. We would look at it. We'd reassess it. We'd talk amongst ourselves. We'd criticize each other what we were doing.

We'd go, oh, you know what? I think I see what's going on here now. I'm going to adjust course. It's what we've always done. Something horrible happened to our profession. In addition to each individually being courageous and speaking from virtuous positions, we have to restore collegiality. One thing I am clear on is that physicians, we actually agree in about 85% of the material, all of us.

I did a large Twitter spaces today with a bunch of physicians who allegedly had totally different opinions. We agree, A, we are there just to represent the interest of the patient to the best of our ability. We all agree on that. Nobody disagrees from that. And that some force has come in and disturbed the normal practice of medicine. Some of it is that many people are employees who knew that that was going to scare them

so much. Other is things like laws and legislation, this AB 2098 here in California. And of course, the social media and the mob. People have been fearful of retribution, But we need to come back to our profession as it normally functions, restore collegiality, have our differences. The differences are really in the weeds. And take control of the profession of medicine, again. That in addition to individually standing up.

Go ahead, Kelly. Absolutely. And that is why it is so critically important to keep big government, big pharma, the mainstream media out of the practice of medicine. You really have to wonder with these new Twitter file drops saying that the FBI, the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States, was involved, had their hands in crafting the narrative about COVID with Twitter, the FBI. You really have to ask yourself, what jurisdiction does law enforcement have in matters of public health? We have got to go back to relying on our

fellow physicians, our fellow scientists, public health experts have that robust, vigorous debate that we have always had as the cornerstone of good medicine. Not be afraid to disagree. But we can't expect doctors to make good decisions for their patients when they have a gun to their head. And we've got to, as you said, we've got to just say no. Do not accept this. Do not just say we are not doing this. We will not be intimidated. We will engage in robust, vigorous debate, and we will come to the right answers by doing that. Yes. And I think that, you know, Drew's point about us being collegiate,

you know, the safety in numbers as well. I think we often forget that democracy means people power. The real power is actually with the people. But it's, you know, they're able to, this form of oppression or tyranny that we're experiencing in medicine is only perpetuating itself because they scare individuals from speaking up. If we come together as a profession, in safety in numbers, they can't take us all out. That's how we change things.

I think people need to realize we have much more power than we actually realize. And we've been so beaten down in America, particularly the insurance companies make decisions for us. The attorneys are up our butt with everything. The regulatory agencies, the hospital administration, we are just beaten down and we are at the bottom. We're like drug addicts at the bottom right now. We have to have a moment of clarity and move out of this state we're in because it is just so unacceptable. Kelly, to your point, decisions being made by the FBI. I was on the television show the night that the school closures came and I was like,

what doctor told you to close the schools? What infectious disease consultant came in and said, this is how we handle a pandemic with an R-naught of this level? They said to me, nobody, we just think it's the right thing to do. That is the story of this pandemic. Kelly, we have to kind of wrap this thing up. I'll give last words to you and Dr. Asim. I just would, again, thank you for being here. I know that you're away and we appreciate it more than ever that you're taking time out of your schedule to join us um and sharing really your

your background as a cardiologist i think it's critically important for people to hear so thank you blessings to you and uh thank you for your courage and your uh willingness to participate with us yeah thank you kelly greatly appreciate it and i think if people want a little bit more of a deeper understanding of the broad themes that we've discussed today, please go and, you know, it's open access. Read my article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. It's called Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on the mRNA Vaccine Through Real Evidence-Based Medicine. And I cover all these themes in there and people can read it and think about it and discuss it. But at the very least, hopefully it will open people's minds up.

Where else can they follow you give us give us oh as you say just tell us that and then we'll let you go on your vacation but yeah go have a glass of wine yeah go go give us give us the rest of your contact information for so are you yeah are you still are you in twitter jail like i am you're out okay no i'm i'm luckily i was i never got banned off twitter and now obviously elon musk has allowed open season so many quite eminent doctors recently have been contacting me and doing videos supporting calls for the suspension of the jab and they're getting half a million views and getting shared a lot which is great on twitter so twitter is pretty open to all this stuff um so i'm on twitter as dr simulhotra and then instagram i use a little bit as lifestyle medicine doctor but twitter's

really my main sort of platform for social media and advocacy on this terrific thank you my friend have a nice vacation thank you all the best take care and kelly kelly you and i'll be in here next week with uh mr dr. Brindle. Is that how you pronounce his last name? Byron Bridal, yes. I wish we could get Kelly back on Twitter. We're trying, my dear. We're trying.

And then I have a speech. I know. I keep retweeting it to people. Like, tell Elon. We've got Byron Bridal. I'm telling myself here. Yeah. Yes. And then Drew is going to be

actually on special forces next wednesday yeah that's right when i play a big day uh uh hang on a second we'll let give kelly a chance to jump off before we do that but um i just want to say that we've got i've got i've got some alternatives i've i've made contact with doctors have some differing opinions than you and I, and I want to get them in here as well. So we can, you'll see, we don't differ very much at all. We differ on the interpretation of the data, the trust in the data, the data we're sort of focusing on versus that. And our clinical experiences are somewhat different one from the other. And some of that is a function of where we practice medicine and what context. So it's very interesting to try to further clarify what what's going on here but it's going to be

in a collegial way i promise you no i think that's great and even today you know both you and a scene brought up you know good points about the you know the study saying well we haven't done a study looking at other vaccines to see if they may cause some transient increase in troponin levels. Those are all valid things. Absolutely. Those are things worth thinking about, talking about, and frankly, addressing. We should craft that study or get somebody to, so that we can address these things. Those are all valid things. This is the way it's supposed to work. You're supposed to point out the flaws in a study that you're relying on. You're supposed to point out how you think somebody has misinterpreted the data or overestimated something.

So I am all in for that. I will never shy away from a discussion that is respectful with other colleagues who are willing to talk about the actual data and not simply attack one another. The ad hominem attacks have no place in this. That doesn't make any sense at all. And it's all triggered cognitive dissonance. It's a sign of cognitive dissonance when we go after people for who they are rather than what the argument is. Kelly, thank you so much. I'm going to let you go.

We'll see you next week with Byron. Sounds great. Thanks. Take Kelly, thank you so much. I'm going to let you go. We'll see you next week with Byron. Sounds great. Thanks. Take care. Thank you so much. And now, Susan, you want to show something? She needs to be queen of the world, for sure. Or at least the medical world.

I was going to tell her that that would be your vote. She would have to be a possibility. I see, I know many of you have been patiently waiting on Twitter spaces. We are not going to have time to take calls today. Christine, I know you've got some breaking data on the mRNA folding. Do me a favor, look at some of the Novavax data, because that's going to be critical in us interpreting the effect of the range of proteins produced by mRNA viruses and how

some of them may be what's causing some of these cardiovascular problems that we are seeing. This is all getting in the weeds of the science. She has a presentation she wants to give us. We don't have time for that today. Scott Adams, thank you for patiently waiting here throughout the entire presentation and listening to us. Hopefully I did you proud.

And Caleb, you want to show something, a piece of what's going to happen to me next week on Wednesday on Fox Network. You guys have to see this. Watch. To do something like this. Can't call your agent. No one's coming to save you. Me doing this is like feeling as alive as I can possibly feel.

So that was me falling out of a helicopter, which was something I did backwards on the Special Forces World's Toughest Test that you're going to see me and 15 other people going through in the Wadi Rum Desert of Jordan next Wednesday at 8 o'clock? On Fox. On Fox Network. Set your DVR. you know channel 11 here in

los angeles don't miss the first episode yeah it's insane it's insane what we all did and uh we're all deepest clear dearest of friends now because we are trauma bonded together by what we went through in this experience there is some longer uh sort of um promos on my instagram account you can check out my stories there went on re posted one on Reels under First Lady of Love. I'm going to put it on yours. Okay, good. So with all that said, I've actually spent a lot of time today talking to colleagues and I'm just so interested in what happened to us. We are an example of what happened in the entire country and we should be able to bring ourselves out of it because we all share the absolute priority of doing no we all share the absolute

priority of doing no harm and serving the best interest of our patients. Every patient, every physician I've ever met has that as his or her priority. And that should be able to enough to lead us through this so we can start to find some clarity, find some truth, uncover some of these concerns that people have so we can sort of start a new, a new birth of freedom, as we say. Uh, so anyway, I have nothing more to add today. Uh, we have lots of interesting guests coming up. We appreciate the, this year of, of you all supporting us on this stream. We've had some really interesting interviews. I have pulled away a piece of a piece of the puzzle each, no matter how much I disagree with the guests, I'm a little piece of the puzzle has

fallen into place for me with every sort of silence voice i have interview hearing the same thing over and over again does not get us anywhere we need to hear all opinions and try to get towards the truth and there's uh there are a lot of problems there are a lot of problems but uh i do i am much more positive about 23 than i was about 22 particularly as it pertains to the behavior of my profession and our peers i I get attacked by peers sometimes on Twitter. I DM every single one of them. I call them on the phone, and guess what? We disagree about very little. The ones who refuse to get on the phone, I have grave concerns about their personality functioning, and I don't know. I don't know what we do with how many outliers there are, but that's very concerning that we have a lot of people

that are unwilling to drop some of their defensive strategies to be collegial and they should think about it. Again, a time for courage. Happy New Year, everybody. Appreciate you all being here and we will see you next Tuesday, early, correct Susan? Three o'clock noon Pacific with Megyn Kelly, Tuesday? Yes. Early next Tuesday.

Yes, it's early. I think so, yeah. Okay. And Caleb, thank you for everything. We're flying in really late that night too. It's all right. Remember I said don't book anything. It'll be fine.

You book me anyway. And by then you'll either be in the studio or have a new cable for your camera that keeps making you turn green. We'll be in the studio by then. No, we'll be in the studio. I don't know why it's doing that. I'm sorry.

We're going to fix all this. I bought three new cords while we were on the show. We try to be perfect, but we're not. We'll see you next Tuesday, noon Pacific, with Megyn Kelly. God bless y'all. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed

physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving. Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated since this was published. If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, don't call me, call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at drdrew.com slash help.