The Highwire with Del Bigtree - Dr. Aseem Malhotra: COVID JAB ‘HAS UNPRECEDENTED HARMS’

Episode Date: October 10, 2022

NHS trained Cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, recently joined a growing body of scientists and doctors breaking free of the mainstream Covid narrative. After spending 9 months analyzing countless Covid-19 vaccine papers and studies, he presented comprehensive evidence supporting his call for Covid-19 vaccination to be suspended immediately.#DrAseemMalhotra #WorldCouncilForHealthBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I want to talk about, I would say, this week's whistleblower. It's fairly new to the scene. Obviously, a prominent heart doctor in the UK. We saw him speaking out on GBN News back in October. Well, now he's written maybe two of the most important papers to be written about the COVID-19 vaccine, especially the MRI vaccines. It's getting a lot of press. It's getting a lot of attention.

In many ways, you could say he's going viral. He's on the news. He's doing, you know, conferences and talking about this. So this is just a taste of really the new star on the block when it comes to transparency and a passion for the scientific method. I'm talking about Dr. Ashim Mulhatra. Take a look at this. I was one of the first people to have the COVID-19 vaccine. I helped out in a vaccine center. I was on Good Morning Britain helping tackle vaccine hesitancy. I did not conceive of the possibility that a vaccine could cause any real harm at all.

it wasn't even part of, it wasn't even anywhere in my brain. Over a few months, conversations with various people started to make me think a little bit differently. Somebody from a very prestigious British institution, cardiology department researcher, a whistleblower, if you like, contacted me to say that the researchers in this department had found inflammation from imaging studies around the conary 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. Knowing this information, which is very concerning, Stephen Gundry's paper in circulation,

and also anecdotal evidence. I mean, I have a lot of interaction with the cardiology community across the UK, and anecdotally, I've been getting told by colleagues that they are seeing younger and younger people coming in with heart attacks. We have 14,000 extra unexplained out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in this country alone. No one wants to talk about. Israel data, 16 to 39 year olds, they did a very rigorous analysis, 25% increase in heart attacks and out of hospital cardiac arrests in 16 to 39 year olds, specifically associated with the vaccine, not associated with COVID.

I was under the impression that the vaccine would prevent transmission. We obviously now know that's completely false. That isn't true. We don't even know if it was true at the beginning. We had data on hospitalizations and death actually for 100,000 vaccinated versus unvaccinated. versus unvaccinated. So we're able to separate it by age group. So you have to vaccinate 230 people over the age of 80 to prevent one COVID death.

520 if you're 70 to 79, 1,300 if you're 60 to 69, 2,600 if you're 50 to 59. This was a number of very eminent scientists associated with the BMJ. And what they found in the original trials where everything is corrected is supposed to be the gold standard, the risk of serious adverse events that were reported in people in the vaccine group.

was significantly higher than the risk of people being hospitalized with COVID. This was the original, this is Pfizer and Moderna trials combined. Now think about this for a second. It was these trials alone before we had any of the data that led to the approval and rollout of the vaccine, not just a rollout, coercion, mandates, people being threatened with their jobs. Why, when we've got a serious adverse event rate, which is probably in the range of at least 1 in 800 to 1 in 1,000 from good quality data, Why is it not being pulled when other vaccines,

swine flu vaccine in 1976 was pulled because it caused Guillain-Barry syndrome in one in a hundred thousand? Rotavirus vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it caused a form of bowel obstruction in one in ten thousand. We're talking of serious adverse limits of one in eight hundred. I think now it's high time that policymakers around the world put an end to the mandates. History will not be on their side and the public will not forgive them for it.

What we're dealing with now, with hindsight, With hindsight is perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime. That was a brilliant discussion at an event held by the World Council for Health. I want to say that if you want to watch the entirety of that, obviously that link will be available with our show, but you can also go to the World Council for Health.org and check it out there. It is my honor and pleasure, though, to be joined now by Dr. Asim Malhotra. Dr. Mahatra, thank you for taking the time.

I know you're traveling, so appreciate you joining us today. I appreciate it. I'm glad to speak to you today, Del. All right. I want to just sort of set up. I don't want to put words in your mouth or anything, but if you were asked right now, are you a person that's pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine in general?

How would you respond to that question? Very pro-vaccine, traditional vaccines. Dell, it's really important to understand. And that was probably the main reason, certainly at the very beginning. You know, I was one of the first to have the vaccine in January 2021. I was used, well, I wouldn't say used. I was asked to go in Good Morning Britain to help tackle vaccine hesitancy in February 2021 because I convinced a friend of mine who's a famous film director because she was getting

information and wasn't sure that actually, you know, and this is still true in the history of medicine. And I think that there's important context here. In the last decade, I've probably been one of the biggest critics, certainly mainstream media, in the UK, if not the world, on pharmaceutical industry, manipulations and deception. I even spoke in the European Parliament 2018, and I said that because of the system failures, which we'll talk about in a second, existing in terms of how research is disseminated through regulators to doctors and patients, honest doctors could no longer practice honest medicine.

So that's my background, even before I went on Good Morning Britain, to understand rational concerns about why people would be potentially afraid of a new vaccine. And the reason I did that, Dell, which I mentioned in my talk, I did not conceive of the possibility at all that a vaccine can cause this sort of damage, this sort of, in many cases, horrific damage to people and such a high prevalence. It wasn't even conceivable. And the reason I'm saying that and why that's important, even now, I know there are cardiologists, there are doctors, because a lot of patients,

come to me for a second opinion, who are not even acknowledging the possibility that a vaccine can cause harm to the heart. So in a way, that's where I started. But of course, over time, things changed. And one of the, I think, the turning points for me, not at the time, but in reflection a few months later, is my father, who was a very prominent doctor in the UK. He was the Honorary Vice President of the British Medical Association, a retired general practitioner. He suffered a very shocking, unexplained sudden cardiac death in July of last year, 2021. And he was very fit guy, healthy diet. I'd actually done some routine heart scans on him a few years earlier.

I know that blood flow through his arteries were good. I know his lifestyle inside out. I'm also somebody that has been a pioneer, if you like, in changing the understanding about heart disease develops through my research and even working on research to show how we can potentially reverse. I know this subject very, very well. But his post-mortem findings did not make sense to me at all. He had two critical stenosis in his arteries.

In other words, severe blockages in two of his arteries. And I couldn't explain it at the time. And then a few months later, and you played that clip from GB News I did last October, a couple of bits of the jigsaw started to now paint a picture, which was looking more and more concerning and essentially suggesting at that time that the MRNA vaccines could be accelerating heart disease and leading to potential heart attacks and sudden cardiac death. Now, since that time, when all of that emerged,

I decided that I was going to critically now look at the data properly. I spent probably a total of nine months before I published these papers, looking at the data, speaking to people. I don't just rely on my own critical analysis. I go to other independent experts, and I spoke to a very eminent scientists in Stanford and Oxford and Harvard, people who are involved in vaccine development, people who are immunologists, to investigative journalists.

two Pfizer whistleblowers contacted me, and I spoke to them. And when you put it all together, right now as it stands, Dell, and it's unequivocal, the evidence is overwhelming that the risk of serious harm is unprecedented, and it needs to be pulled, it needs to be suspended. And one of the reasons I say we can do that now more safely without causing any excess potential harm from people not having the vaccine, is what's circulating now, Dell,

in terms of the current variant of COVID, with the Omocrine variant is no more lethal than the flu. It's a bad cold or it's the flu. And that's good news. We should be happy, we should be reassured about that. But what happens with the vaccine, these risk of harms which are probably in the order of at least 1 in 800 of serious adverse events

within the first couple of months. I suspect it's probably much higher than that. But in terms of definitive data we have, but 1 in 800. That harm with the MRNA technology remains constant, but the risk of COVID is going down. So what that does is it flips the harm to benefit ratio more in terms of harm. So one of the things I had to do, which hadn't been part of the discussion so far,

and I had to put that in the paper, is could we figure out from real world data what the absolute benefit of the vaccine is in preventing COVID death? And we looked at UK data, and you've played that clip from my talk at the World Council for Health Press conference, is that during the Delta wave, which by the way, is much more lethal than the current strain. Yes. Last year during the four-month hold wave, we looked at national data of vaccinated versus unvaccinated,

to look at COVID deaths per 100,000 population. And we were able to give an estimate, essentially, which I still think is an exaggeration, because it's not corrected for what we call confounding factors, something called healthy user bias. Vaccinated people tend to be healthier. People who are more hesitant come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, therefore their risk is higher.

But even when you don't correct to that. A lot of times you'll have people in the unvaccinated category that were so sick that they felt like, they were in that immune suppressed group that probably shouldn't get the vaccine. So you're taking unhealthy people and tracking their health records. But even under those circumstances. Yes, we've got Delta wave over 80 after vaccinate 230 people to prevent one COVID death, 70 to 85.20. Now, what about Omicron?

Now, I didn't put this in the paper because we only really had three months of data, but I thought, actually, let's be conservative here. If you look at Omicron data from the UK, and the population in the UK in many ways is quite similar to U.S. population. So if you look at Omicron data for the first three months of this year, the heart group in the UK did these calculations. And I put this in my talk. If you're over 80, you have to vaccinate 7,300 people over the age of 80 in the highest risk group to event one COVID death. Now, if the harm is in the range of about 1 in 800 at least to 1 in 1,000, and it has been replicated. Norway has been very good and transparent and robust looking at pharmacovigilance data.

So doctors actually documenting where they felt the vaccine had caused it seriously. adverse event. That means a disability hospitalization. So when you say just because you use the term, pharma co-vigilance, is that like the VARA's data, the yellow card data in England where doctors are reporting when they believe they've seen an incident or they're supposed to report that data? So they're not just supposed to support it. A report on it, Dell, or regulators like the FDA, the MHRA in the UK

are supposed to be looking closely at this data. Right. And even before we got this, you know, this, I think The smoking gun for me was a paper published in Vaccine, which is like the one of the number one leading journals for vaccines in the world. And it was peer reviewed and the authors were people like Robert Kaplan from Stanford as Peter Doshi associate editor for the BMJ. I spoke to the lead to the author at length, Joseph Frayman. They were able to access some of the original trial data that led to the approval of the drug using

FDA's website and Health Canada's website. This is where you have very robust data because it corrects for confounders. the vaccine group, you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event than you were to be hospitalized with COVID. Now, that's extraordinary. This is during the Wuhan strain, by the way, a more lethal strain of the virus that was circulating. But it's replicated. And then, of course, since my interview in GB News, a couple of other things came up, which are really important bits of data. In the UK, we have 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests that occurred in 2021 versus 2020. Israel, meticulously, a publication published in Nature Reports, which is a very high-impact

journal, their scientists looked at 16 to 39-year-olds in Israel and found a 25% increase in cardiac arrests and heart attacks. And they said it's specifically associated with the vaccine, MRNA vaccines, but not associated with COVID. And that leads me to something else, Dell, that we need to discuss. Because, you know, when you, when you, when you, When you look at the roots of all of this, why is there a bit of confusion? And the driving factor behind a lot of this is the legal entity that is big powerful corporations, in this case, big farmer. They are profit-making businesses, they have a legal obligation to produce profit for their

shareholders, they do not have any legal obligation to give you the best treatment. And historically, as you know, without naming any companies, most of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies over the last couple of decades have been found guilty of committing serious fraud. You know, hiding data on harms on drugs, illegal marketing of drugs, you know, this is exactly what they've been doing for a long time and getting away with it because they end up making more profit than they do, you know, they make more profit from the drug than they end up paying in terms of fines. So it's a cost of business for them.

And, you know, and I don't think that say this lightly. It's a really important concept for people to understand because I've thought about this in a lot of depth over a long time to understand what's going on in terms of the culture and their effect on institutions, on the regulator where they have a lot of. financial control. Dr. Robert Hare is one of the leading experts in the world on psychopathy, forensic psychologist. Many years ago in a documentary called The Corporation in the book, he actually says that the way that the corporation operates, and not by individuals, I'm not blaming individuals within them. I debated the CEO of Astrogenica and the Cambridge University

Union a few years ago. Very nice guy. We had dinner together, but of course he's acting in his role for the corporation, right? That's his job. The corporation as an entity is described as being psychopathic by Dr. Robert Hare. And there's lots of evidence that suggests this is how they function. So if we take a step back for a second, we think, hold on a minute. We have increasing unchecked power

of big powerful corporations over the last three decades, certainly since probably with the best intentions, neoliberal economic policies from Ronald Reagan, the US, in the UK, they've had increased unchecked power. And if that entity that has,

funds most of university research now, drug industry research, The FDA and the regulators of most of the world are funded by them. If they are in the way that they approach their business, in the way that they exert their power, psychopathic, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what effect that's going to have on the rest of society. It's moving us away from being what it means to be human. And concentrating, for example, for me as a cardiologist, as a clinician,

I have an interest in improving people's health, relief suffering, improving population health, mental and physical health. But what we are doing is we are battling an entity that is very much taking us away from what it means to be human. And that's going to have an effect on our culture. And actually, that's the root, in my view, that's the root of many of the problems in the world today. Certainly I want to look at it from a health perspective.

I totally agree. And obviously, a lot of what you're talking about is all contained in two brilliant papers you put out called Curing the Pandemic of Misinformation on COVID-19, MRNA vaccines through real evidence. There's part one and part two. Part one, you really cover sort of the science, behind looking at the trials and some of the metadata around the world that we're looking at when it comes to heart issues and on all that we actually know.

And then the part two is really the corruption you've discussed, the funding of pharma, both in government entities here in America, our media. Your media is also affected, but not as a direct, I think, a route as we have in America. And then of course, when, you know, one of the things I've talked about is you take an industry that you could call psychopathic or however you want to describe it. And you take away all liability on one of their products, which is how it works here in America.

I'm not sure if you have the exact same liability protections in England. But it's quite terrifying because, you know, and I'll just tell you where I'm coming from. And I've been on this investigation for several years. I was a producer of the CBS Talks to the Doctors before I dove into much of this discussion, corruption inside of regulatory agencies and then you start seeing that

pharma and and our regulatory agencies are really you know scratching each other's back is probably at the very least and in many ways our regulatory agencies in america is where I'm most focused have become almost advertising agencies for pharmaceutical products where we really have conflicts of interest that are getting to be virtually insurmountable I mean when we look at pharma now it's the number one one most powerful lobby in in America. It is, I think, growing to be one of the most powerful lobbies

all around the world in getting politicians elected. And so, and then entering into the health departments, many of our health departments are now being run by people who work for pharma. And so we just have this revolving door problem. And then, as you pointed out, you know, there's so much you've talked about in these papers and everyone should read these papers.

It's so well laid out, Dr. Mahal. So I just want to thank you for the clarity. I felt like the work that we've done over the last five years on our show is contained in just a few pages really clearly explaining what's going on here. But when we look at the science now, when we really start to look at this term science, and I think one of the biggest concerns I've had, I want to ask you about this is this is such a blatant, blatant disregard for reason and scientific method when we look at the COVID-19 vaccine. And when we see those things happen, it really has the ability to destroy our confidence in our health agency, CDC, the NHS. But it is starting to erode confidence in science in general. And you're talking about how we've seen some precursors to that. These different peer-reviewed journals saying, look, we can't repeat the science.

You know, 75% of the study's done here, we can't seem to be able to repeat what they found. Or other journals say 50% of this looks. to be untrue. You can't trust it any longer. Are you concerned now? And as a doctor and a practitioner, who as you said, you start your paper out very much talking about your confidence in the original vaccines and their level of safety. But this is clearly around the world hurting confidence in the entire vaccine program. It's hurting confidence in our regulatory agencies, the NHS, and ultimately that is going to hurt competence in doctors in general. So when you decided to be as strong as you are,

and now to be clear, you're saying stop this vaccine immediately until we can really assess all of the data. Are you concerned that making a statement as strong as that, that it is going to have repercussions that could affect our competence in other spaces of science and medicine? Dale, it's a great question. And some of what's going to happen next is a bit unprecedented. but the best way to tackle this is to face the facts head on and not talking about it means the damage continues and the problem becomes bigger and bigger

So we have to accept there will be some You know, there will be some backlash there will be some fallout But ultimately we need to reform and transform the system and I didn't just point out the problems with what's happened with the vaccine I've offered solutions as well there are very clear policy solutions that need to be implemented as well So for example moving forward how do we make things better? I've offered How do we stop this situation from occurring again? And for me, it's not just about the vaccine. If you look at the last sort of two decades around the world in the US, you know, in Europe,

the overall effect of the pharmaceutical industry has been a negative one on society because most of the drugs they produce are copies of old ones. Often the drugs they produce are more harmful than beneficial. And the therapeutic interventions are clinical benefit above previous drugs, probably in the region of only about 10. You add in the waste when they're changing molecules here and there, patenting new drugs, making money off and moving on. The waste itself is a huge negative impact on society.

So what do we do moving forward? Well, one of the things for sure is that pharmaceutical companies, of course, should be able to develop drugs. But they fail so badly on society in the last few decades. It should no longer be allowed to test them. Absolutely not. And they certainly shouldn't be allowed to hold on to the raw data. Politicians in the US, I know this is a big problem.

Why are political parties taking money from pharma? The role of government, primarily, you know, two of the biggest important roles of government, protect its citizens from external aggressors and protect their citizens from disease and serve their communities, work in the interest of their communities. Government is failing. We are talking about, I'm not saying about the U.S., even the UK, other parts of the world. We are heading towards failed states when governments can't act in the interest of their population. Big farmer in the way that it's conducted itself, like many big corporations, as far as I'm concerned,

I said this in the US at the metabolic health summit, which I spoke a couple of years ago. I said the big farmer is an enemy of democracy because they are suppressing free speech. They are giving us misinformation. People need to talk about them in these terms. We are dealing with an enemy of democracy and they need to be completely transformed and reformed. Medical education shouldn't be sponsored by the drug industry. And we need independent people to synthesize the evidence. The regulator.

They should not be taking any money from industry. Money, clouds, judgment. There are people who are good, but the problem is the system makes good people do bad things. And the evidence is overwhelming going many years. You know, Dale, I was very much aware of this over about 10-year period. On three occasions, I actually, through mainstream media with some very eminent doctors, including the former personal physician to Her Majesty of the Queen of England, Sir Richard Thompson, who was present in the World College of Physicians,

who's been a great ally in this movement. You know, on three occasions I called, and it made main news in different newspapers, as a guardian, the Daily Mail. I called for a public inquiry into excess drug deaths, you know, prescribed medications are now the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer. And an inquiry into the pharmaceutical entry on a scale that was similar to something we had here, the Chilkot inquiry into the Iraq War around the whole weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is so deep and ingrained, it needs that kind of big public inquiry. I think this now, unfortunately, we didn't want, I didn't want this to happen. It's really sad that we've got to this point. But I think this unchecked power, this is where the bubble bursts. And I think the way that the vaccine rollout has been dealt with, the way it's continuing to be dealt with, is the opportunity that we need to use to burst that bubble, reform the system, and create a healthcare system

that works for people's health, mentally and physically, not against them. Well, on that measure, we are totally aligned. I want to point out that our legal team is headed by Aaron Siri, who you quote in your papers, who's been really brilliant at getting, you know, as you said, the drug companies not only are doing their own testing, they're locking away their data so that no independent research can be done, which would be the only, truly, you know, that's the only way to have science-based medicines. You know, the scientific method demands that those that are not completely committed to making the money from the product

should be allowed to look at the data and assess it from that perspective. So I'm sure you're aware, not only as pharma, was pharma and Pfizer holding up the data? Aaron Siri had to sue the FDA because the FDA was holding the data, the Pfizer data from the trials from the public and wanted to spend 75 years waiting to distribute it. Aaron Siri won in that case and all of that data is now coming forward will be out before the end of the year. And I also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, I can, our nonprofit, sued for all the V-Safe data, which is going to be far more accurate than the VAERS data and those things. The VSAFE data is the system built for COVID.

They wanted to hold that up and we are we have sued and won and that will be released. Hopefully within the next week we're going to see all the millions of of people's information, their identity, you know, obviously taken away so that we can start doing investigations and I'm sure you'll be interested in looking at that. You know, just to wrap this up, because my audience has watched us really investigate this vaccine program over the last several years, even before COVID. And so I just want to ask you, you know, in your paper, you talk about the safety of the original vaccine program. But there seems to be, and this happens with, you know, many of the people I've interviewed, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, many of these doctors all start out in this exact same space saying, And pro vaccine, this COVID vaccine, you know, really is this anomaly.

But I will tell you, and I think that you have begun on a rabbit hole, clearly you understand pharma, you are going to find that there are a lot of issues with the entire vaccine program that are difficult. So when you say that, you know, the childhood vaccine program is safe, would you at least, would you have to concede there that you're making assumptions based on all of that sort of education you had as a doctor, or did you do the same dive into those childhood vaccines that you've done with COVID, looking at the trials, did they have placebo groups? Were they long-term studies in safety over the course of two years? We talk about measles, mumps, Rubella,

chickenpox vaccines, this and that. Have you done that same vigilance? Would be my question, with every vaccine we're giving the way you have with COVID. So, Del, the first thing is, I think certainly one of the things that's worth mention, is, you know, no drug is completely safe. The question is, you know, those questions about other vaccines, certainly as far as I'm concerned, from what I know so far, I've not had the opportunity because I had to focus on the COVID vaccine, is to look at those in detail in terms of what are the absolute true harms, where are the concerns coming from, are there better, is there better data? And of course, those questions need to be asked. Yeah. But even with that,

you know, if you look at the, all the drugs we prescribe, you see a lot of the, my work has been involved in too much medicine campaign looking at drugs like statin drugs. I've been one of the biggest proponents challenging that statins are the one drug we believe them to be. And of course, people do have a lot of significant quality of limiting side effects from statins, life limiting. So, you know, when you look at all the other drugs we prescribe, even if there is an issue to some degree with traditional vaccines at the moment, and I'm very open to changing my mind and it's not something I've looked at yet, even despite that, I still think that traditional. traditional vaccines in terms of their prevalence of harms are far, far safer.

That doesn't mean they're completely safe, but far safer than all the other drugs that we're prescribing to patients. But to answer your question, no, I've not gone into that detail. And for me, certainly the point of obviously the paper was, you know, looking at what we did with the COVID vaccine because we've all been affected by it. And of course, I've never seen anything. And certainly in terms of the reports, you know, I didn't mention, for example, that one of the traditional vaccines, I think the measles of rebella,

prevalence of reporting is something like in the in the order of probably one in four thousand of something at least mild in terms of a reaction but um you know you look at this here uh with what we're experiencing with this with this COVID-19 vaccine I've never seen anything like it in terms of reporting and the scale of reporting certainly compared to other vaccines even in the states is is through the roof so that's why I think that I you know that's why I focused on this yeah no and I'm I'm you can only focus on one thing at a time and obviously what we're seeing in our VAERS data, the vaccine adverse events reporting system data. These numbers outweigh every single vaccine report since the history of VERS, starting with our beginning of liability protections in 1986.

We have never had this many injuries reported from all vaccines, all put together in all those years, and this is just two years into this vaccine. So there's no doubt. and I think there's probably a lot of reasons for that. We've never given a product to this many people all at once at one time. So a lot of this confounding issues to look at, but it clearly is a massive problem. I'm glad you're on it. I want to ask you this.

There are still people all around the world. Here in America, they've sort of homogenized the recommendations saying that, you know, kids over the age of five, everybody should get a booster if it's available to you. get caught up on your shots. There are people that they're being, you know, sold on this brand new Omicron variant booster, that that's going to be more effective. You're not alone in speaking out.

Dr. Paul Offutt, a huge proponent of vaccines has spoken out against this current Amacron booster. But what is your, what is your official statement? If you were to clearly state to anyone that came to you and says, I'm thinking you to get a booster or I haven't vaccinated my child yet, I'm looking, maybe it's time. What do you want to say to those people? Yeah, so, I mean, I'm somebody that's been a big proponent of, you know, I'm an expert to some degree with my work in what we call evidence-based medical,

ethical evidence-based medical practice, share decision-making. So in those conversations with the patients, which I have, actually, I always start by, okay, let's try and help you understand what your risk, first of all, or your child's risk of COVID-Omicron is. And, of course, I tell them now it's extremely, low risk, right? So that's a good way to reassure them first and foremost. We have to allay people's fears. That's what one of the things we do is doctors. We reassure people because people go around with lots of fears around their health. So I start there. And then, of course, I've got this paper,

I can say, well, the absolute benefit for you from this vaccine is extremely small and the harms are unprecedented. And I will help them make a decision first and foremost. Now, often the patients themselves, when I present data in that way, will say, actually, doctor, thank you very much. I'd rather not. But if a situation arises where the patient says to me, what do you think for me? Then, of course, I'll tailor it to the individual. But to be honest, Dow, I've been very clear now, and I'm not going to backtrack on this. For me, the evidence is overwhelming that it needs to stop for everybody until this is fully investigated, because there are too many signals, too many bits of data, some very good high-quality data showing the prevalence of harms are, again, unprecedented.

So for me, no, it's, you know, I've made it public, and I think this is a time to stop. As far as I'm concerned, it's unequivocal in terms of the harms. And we know the benefits are very, very small now. What's going on with, you know, it's quite interesting to try and, you know, people can look at it from different ways. A lot of people understandably are very angry. You know, I lost the last surviving member of my family, who was my best friend, almost certainly to this vaccine. I'm effectively orphaned. I lost my brother when I was young.

So I understand their emotions and their anger. But dealing with this in an angry way, I don't think it's going to help solve the problem. So what's going on with, say, the FDA or other authorities or doctors? I think three things probably. One is ignorance in terms of not understanding the data properly or the fact there are harms. Worse in ignorance is the illusion of knowledge. And then, of course, there's willful blindness.

Willful blindness is people turning a blind eye because it makes them very uncomfortable to think of something like this causing this sort of problem, right? So they do it in order to feel safe, to reduce anxiety, avoid conflict, and to protect prestige. And we're all capable of that.

I was willfully blind to some degree until I wasn't. So I think approaching the conversation in this way, being open saying, listen, I want to help my patients as best I can if I'm speaking to a doctor, this is where I was, this has changed, I want you just to think about this.

that's the way we approach this. We need to do this in a more consulatory way. One thing I noticed, you know, I have a lot of relatives and friends in the United States. And when I was over there at the end of last year, having conversations with friends or my cousins or even doctors, I noticed that the conversation, even with doctors around COVID and the vaccine became politicized. So instead of discussing the truth and the evidence, it was something like, you can't say that that you're, you know, there's a problem with a vaccine because that will sound like you're a Trump supporter or you're a Republican. And I was like, this is intellectual bankruptcy. When you start, you know, trying to change the narrative on a scientific discussion to a political one, there's clearly something very, very strange going on.

And for me, that is willful blindness at the heart of it. And we've seen this throughout history. You know, we've seen it in the UK with a BBC very famous singer who was ultimately, after he died, found, you know, to be guilty for pedophilia. called Jimmy Saville. We've seen a long history of the, you know, the Me Too movement came out in terms of Harvey Weinstein and how, sorry, Harvey Weinstein

and how that also, you know, was ignored for a long time. Even understanding the whole situation around the Holocaust, I'm sure for a period of time, there were people who were crying out and saying this is what's going on in the concentration camps and people ignored it, even though the evidence was clear. We're all potentially capable of this willful blindness, Dell. And I think approaching maybe the conversation in that way to try and get people on side, I think is definitely more productive and more constructive and more likely to change people's minds than pointing fingers and getting angry.

I think we've got to be very careful about how we deal with this now. But at the end of the day, the facts are the facts. The best way to combat this and overcome willful blindness is to face these facts head on. And I think you've laid those facts out as well as they could possibly be laid out in the two papers that you've just put out, which I know are circulating and in many ways going viral themselves. For all of you watching the Highwire right now, if you want those papers in your inbox like everything else, we are totally transparent news agency. We delivered to you all the evidence that we present on our show. All you have to do is go when you're on thehighwire.com, just scroll down and be a part of our newsletter. On Monday after our Thursday show, we always put all the science, all the peer-reviewed studies,

and in this case, Dr. Mahaltra's studies will be in your hand so they can read them yourselves. I don't want you going out there and say, well, Del Bigtree said, or Dr. Mahaltra said, here's the evidence, here's the science, his paper references, the other studies that we've been talking about on this show, and now you've laid it all out in a very concise, brilliant set of papers. I want to thank you for making that effort. I know you're putting your career at risk for doing that. I want to thank you for your bravery, but you didn't stop there. You are part of a film that is breaking right now that has been avoided by all of mainstream

television in the UK, even though it's been produced and put together by one of England's great producers in Mark Sharman. The film is safe and effective a second opinion. We're going to be screening that just a little bit later on in the show so that we can get it out to the entire world. But what made you decide to be a part of a documentary that is going to be labeled as an anti-vax documentary, which is why I'm sure it's not on being presented by the BBC or even GBN or anyone else. It's going to show some of the vaccine injuries that are happening. A lot of the science, you're discussing that. What is it about media and being a part of a film like that that you think is important? Yeah, Dale, thank you.

Well, first of all, Mark, you know, I got it. Mark. I think we first made contact with each other. After I did that GBN's interview, different WhatsApp groups and different connections of people. So it's interesting, you know, I find that when you put your head above the parapet and speak out and stuff that you know,

for me, I've always acted from a position of always thinking about my patients first and from integrity. People will come to you. You know, don't underestimate the power of speaking the truth. People will come to you. And other people start coming out of the woodwork and other doctors and said, yeah, I think there's a problem here. So we had to strategize how do we combat this?

How do we get this out? And one of the strategies, of course, was Mark thought it was a good idea to make a documentary. And I said, I'm very happy to support you in that. And of course, I had, you know, patients coming to me. There were lots of people through social media who were talking about their vaccine injuries. So, you know, I put something out and asked them to contact Mark if they'd been vaccine injured, you know, many, many months ago. So we worked together on that. And of course, by that stage, I decided I was going to try and, I was the best way.

for me to get the information out in the most credible fashion is to go through a peer-reviewed medical journal. And I chose a journal of instant resistance. And I told, I didn't tell Mark or other people what journal it was. I wanted to keep that close to my chest. But I chose a journal that one wasn't funded by industry. And also it allowed me to write 10,000 words because I thought this is such a big problem. It couldn't just be dealt with just by type of going into the science of the vaccine. I needed to go into the root cause of how we got this wrong, why we got it wrong and what we need to do to move forward. So I shared that information with Mark over the last few months of what was coming and what was the content of it. And then,

you know, he waited for me very patiently. I said, Mark, you know, I'm pretty sure, almost certain that my dad died because of the vaccine. I'm very happy to talk about that with you and what's going on. And essentially the conclusions of the paper I put in that, you know, pre-record several weeks ago, actually, well before my paper was published. And then putting the documentary out, Mark was very gracious and he timed it with me getting. that once the paper was finally accepted and the publication date was agreed then we all decide to coordinate this together so it's kind of uh we're helping each other we're just trying to amplify the message and of course those personal stories in the documentaries you've seen dell are very very

powerful you know it's very important that we are trying to you know we are emotional beings it's not just about anecdotes you know so in some ways we're combining you know our hearts and our minds to really get the message across to people so we have the personal stories but then of course I come in there with the evidence. And combining it together, I think, produces something really, really strong and really powerful. Well, I certainly, it's an honor to speak to people that are able to, even in the indoctrination, obviously this isn't where you started. You've been looking at pharmaceutical products.

You've been looking at some of the dangers in how trials and studies are being done by the very, you know, institutions that are going to make the profits off of them. That's a terrible model. It's destined for disaster. I think we're staring that in the face. I want to thank you, though, for being brave enough because as you said in that original GBN news piece that you did, you have friends that have even written papers

that show that there's a problem, and they won't publish it because they're afraid they will lose funding. It is people like that, though, you know, we want to honor them for at least giving us the inside scoop. It's why we're in this problem now. How many doctors and scientists throughout all the years had information that could have saved 10,000, hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of lives, but looked the other way because of how this funding system works.

You're one of those that's stepping out against it, and I want to thank you for doing that. We're going to do everything. We can get your paper out there and also this film, and I want to thank you for taking the time in the middle of your travels to join us today. Thank you, Dale. It's been an absolute pleasure. All right. You take care.