The Highwire with Del Bigtree - DR. ASEEM MALHOTRA EXPOSES DECADES OF BIG PHARMA FRAUD

Episode Date: October 21, 2024

World-renowned Cardiologist, Aseem Malhotra, discusses the new documentary he co-produced, “First! Do No Pharm,” which examines the vast amount of fraud in medical research designed to benefit big pharma. Esteemed members of the medical community detail the systematic corruption from self regulated studies to political capture to financial control over mainstream media.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

One of the great scientists that's out there in doctors that's been so outspoken, just rocked it out there in England. Dr. Asim Mahatra has got a brand new documentary. It's amazing. It's powerful. And you can watch it now. Here's just a preview. Take a look. Between 2003 and 2016, fines imposed on large pharmaceutical companies for fraud and other illegal activities amounted to 33 billion.

dollars. You have to do something. We are considered acceptable collateral damage. We're talking about many millions of people killed by research fraud in medical science. Between 40 and 60,000 Americans died. So this is like approximately equal to the number of Americans who died in the Vietnam War died from taking Vioxx. We need to apply quite a big dose of skepticism to the medical literature. They know they might get a million dollars, for example. for publishing the trial and that I don't really see how you can manage that as a conflict of interest. You are going to be obliterated if you take on this position. I effectively lost my job.

The thing you care about is I don't want to lose my memory. I want to be able to do the things I normally do in life. That's what Alzheimer's Robsy are. The FDA is not going to protect doctors and the public and the insurers and Medicare from this deception about the clinical value of this drug. If you knew, why didn't you do anything? Patient began to verbalize feelings of killing other people and then himself. They are now out of control as an entity that is purely there to make money.

A psychopathic entity. Well, it's a brand new documentary by Dr. Assim Mahatra called First, Do No Farm. It's amazing, and I'm honored to be joined by Dr. Mahaltra right now. great to be back, Dale. It's really great having you. And this is, I feel like this is a culmination of a story that I've been covering for over a decade. Even back when I was working on the doctor's television show, this whole research fraud issue is the heart of all of the problems we have with harm caused by drug companies, whether it's vaccines or drugs, in this case, really discussing drugs. And I was sort of shiard.

shocked, you know, to see that, you know, we know you on this show as having really been outspoken about the dangers of the COVID vaccine, but you were in hot water years ago with the statin issue. Yeah, absolutely. I think you've hit the nail on the head, Adele, actually. So we can't fix people's health or health care until we correct commercial distortions of the scientific evidence. So what this movie tries to portray, I think, quite effectively.

is the layers on which doctors are making clinical decisions on corrupted information. And what is the root cause of that? We can't offer meaningful solutions until we get to the root cause. And if you take the example of statins, which, you know, one of the most prescribed, if not one of the most lucrative drugs in the history of medicine, I mean, it's a trillion-dollar industry, estimated to be prescribed to between 200 million and a billion people worldwide. That's just incredible.

Absolutely. One seventh of the population. Absolutely. Feels like they're alive on, they're being told they're alive on this planet because they're taking this drug. Yeah. And the reality, as you know, Del, is that, and this is where I got heavily involved as a cardiologist trying to understand why have we not really curbed heart disease despite the so-called advances in medical science. And when I went down that rabbit hole, partly through my own experience with patients as well, who are getting side effects, which were much more common, compared to. compared to what I was reading in the medical literature.

As a doctor, I was diagnosing it a lot more common. I thought there's something not right here. And when I looked at the statin issue, the first thing is, when you look at the actual efficacy, the benefit, and patients are not told this, they are best about one, for people who haven't had a heart attack, because most people who prescribe statins, the benefit of taking it from drug industry sponsored trials,

Dell, which we know are also already corrupted in terms of going to give you the best case scenario, is one in 100 in preventing a non-fatal heart attack stroke without prolonging your life. And the problem is patients are not told that and they're not empowered with that information. Right. So I... So just be clear, one percent of people will really see a benefit from this drug. Can I look at it that way? Because I know these numbers get like pushed around. Absolutely. That is in people, in most people prescribed it who haven't had a heart who haven't had a heart attack, right? You're just being told you have high blood pressure. You're,

you're pre you know, you're you have a... You're at risk. At risk. Yeah, absolutely. And that's likely still best case scenario because that's still an interpretation of drug industry sponsored trials. That's the best they could that's the best bow they could put on it. If they don't get side effects. So clearly, I know this for a fact. There's people watching the show right now no matter how healthy you are. I run, I'm shocked that I'll run into friends that have perfectly great diets, jog all the time, and it'll come out like they're on a statin and I'm just thinking why. What you're saying is at least 99 out of 100 people are taking this product and is doing nothing for them,

probably putting them at a higher risk or other issues? Absolutely. I mean, that's another good point. So one is they're not told, it's not going to benefit them, likely not to benefit them. And then a lot of them, and obviously you mentioned people are following healthy lifestyles, but a lot of people have the illusion of protection from a statin. I've seen patients come in who are obese, who think their cholesterol is low, I can go and eat a fast food joint on a regular basis.

Yeah. And that actually, so the overall net effect, in my view for those patients is negative. And that's something I got really heavily involved in. I published a paper in 2013 in the British Medical Journal, which was called saturated fat is not the major issue. So I went into the whole cholesterol hypothesis. I looked at the data, analyzed all of the totality of evidence,

as a doctor who has not had any links whatsoever with the drug industry, is not influenced by that, is purely motivated by making my patients better. And when I published this paper in the BMJ, they peer-reviewed it. It was an analysis opinion piece, if you like. And it got press release, it made news headlines around the world. I said we've also overprescribed statins to millions of people.

And we should be focusing more on sugar rather than saturated fat. We should look at benefits of, say, a low-carb diet for type 2 diabetes, how we can reverse these conditions with lifestyle. And that was great at the beginning. Big, you know, front page of three British newspapers. I was on Fox News, Chicago, CNN International. But then there was a backlash. And that backlash really was the first time I experienced a real threat to my career and my credibility where the chief scientist in the world behind statins, whose department in Oxford has received hundreds of millions from drug companies that manufactured statins.

Although that wasn't declared in the news articles, basically called for attraction saying that we had exaggerated. Me and John Abramson had written a similar piece in the BMJ about, you know, just about statins and people at low risk of heart disease. He said that we had exaggerated the side effect profile and that people would stop taking it. their statins and people would die. And interestingly, Del, he likened it. He said this was basically far worse than what happened with the MMR and Andrew Wakefield issue. That's ironic. So that's what they try and use that as a smearing tactic. And ultimately the British Medical Journal editor got under so much pressure. She didn't want to retract. She said,

listen, you can publish a rebuttal. Right. And we obviously draw it into this in the documentary. And in the end, it went to the media, there was a huge media sort of circus around it, she was put under pressure, she then sent it for an independent review. And in effect, at that stage in 2013, Dell, myself and Dr. John Abramson from Harvard, were effectively on trial for whether or not these articles should be retracted. And if it went down that route of being retracted, being retracted, it was career destroying. Luckily, we stood our ground, you know, we provided more evidence and, you know, six zero in our failure, unanimous decision, no call for retraction. But at that point, Dell, I, rather than be scared off,

because a lot of people would think, you know, that's, I'm not going to go there again. I lost my job as well. So even though you proved to, you were right, how did you lose your job? What did they say to it? Well, actually, even before the so-called call for attraction in the trial, the medical director of the hospital I was working in London, and I was their interventional cardiology fellow. So I was the guy who was the top trainee doing all heart stents. That was what I trained in interventional cardiology. He called me to his office.

First of all, he was very angry about this piece being published saying that, you know, suggesting that our cardiac patients can eat butter. I mean, that can imagine that's what he's getting angry about, actually. But then the chief cardiologist had a conversation with me and said, a scene, you've been very vocal on this issue about statins. If you carry on talking about it in the media, then we may have to cut your contract short. And I wasn't going to stop, Dell, because for me it's about informed consent. It's about ethical evidence-based medical practice.

That's all I care about. So I think there was a few other media stories or, you know, or interviews I got involved in. And then I got this letter saying that we've cut short your contract from, you know, with two months notice. I was effectively jobless at that point. Luckily, I had very influential doctors who were, you know, supportive of me being involved in the obesity campaign. I was representing the medical or colleges separately. And they gave me some work to do with them, at least gave me a little bit of a part-time salary.

But I ended up working in the National Health Service for free. hospital came in, very sympathetic cardiologist there, and he said, listen, we can give you a job one day a week, as a consultant cardiologist, seeing patients, but we can't afford to pay you. So I was actually paying for my own transport to go to the hospital to work as a cardiologist Why? Because I didn't want to stop seeing patients. Wow. So this, so, I mean, this documentary is brilliant because it goes sort of through many of the, some of them are famous cases, others we don't really know what's happening there.

but this statin issue is huge. What are some of the side effects that you were seeing that would, you know, if you only have a 1%, you know, chance of this doing you any good? Yes. It's obviously costing money. It's jacking up your insurance rates. It's costing the national health system's just fortunes. Of course. It's clearly making insane amounts of money when potentially one seventh of the population is on this on a constant.

basis. It's not like you take it once and you're done. This is for like the rest. Do anyone ever get off of statins? Is there ever a promise that you're going to get off the statins someday? I mean, put you on it for a while. I do it all the time with my patients, especially if I think they're getting side effects. And the most common side effects, Dell, are quality of life limiting. So they're not serious or life-threatening, but muscle fatigue, brain fog, erectile dysfunction, stomach upset. Some patients are even diagnosed with having dementia, older patients, when the whole time it was a statin, you stopped the statin, and suddenly their cognitive function,

gets better. And I would imagine then you start taking other drugs to handle the fatigue, erectile dysfunction. Absolutely. And now you're just on this conveyor belt where you just see that handpillar drugs. More recently, it's now accepted, the statins cause type 2 diabetes in about one in 100 to 1 in 50 people. So you've got this issue to add into the equation as well. The model of the drug industry, Dell, is to get as many people taking as many drugs for as long as possible. So more recently, this is how crazy it's getting, in my opinion. We've seen news stories suggesting that 15-year-olds, teenagers should be prescribed statins to prevent future heart attacks.

Oh, my God. So this is their model, business model. And I know this even from debating the CEO of Astrodenica in the Cambridge University Union in 2019, where I was in the opposition, but the motion put forward in the debate was we need more people taking more drugs. We need more new drugs, but that's what they were saying, because that's the way that they are going to make as much money as possible.

But it's our duty to stand up and say, Hold on a minute. This is way, you know, this is excessive in extreme. We are living in a time now where it is clear the pharmaceutical industry has taken over the world. Yeah. In so many ways where I was just talking to someone yesterday that just said they were, you know, they were running a vitamin company. They were having really good results. But if they claim they could do anything, you know, if you claim an apple is good for you, you know, they'll say you have no, you know, you haven't gone through a double blind study. and the pharmaceutical industry is literally dictating,

you're not allowed to say that. You're not allowed to make any claims about health of the sun or, like, all of it. It's literally like our world is now owned by pharma, and they have to prove if you're going to say anything else other than drugs is good for you. I mean, it's literally the world's been turned on its head.

It's a tyranny. Yeah, that's what it is. It's a corporate, big farmer tyranny, right? And in a tyranny, you know, people are then afraid to say what they think because of all of this stuff that you've said, you're going to be targeted, you're a doctor that's promoting lifestyle and silly,

or you know, you're a quack. This is what they do. They use every tactic under the sun to exert their power. But the truth is a truth, and it requires more people and more doctors, really, and members of the public

wants to become aware. And I hope, obviously, when people see the documentary, it's so comprehensive. And it's also, we've taken people who are very credible in the mainstream. We've got the former edits

of the British Medical Journal, a giant in medical publishing. We've got the top doctor in the world who's been involved in more litigation cases against big farmer than anyone, John Abramson from Harvard. And the extent of this is not a peripheral small issue, Dell. Without a shadow of a doubt, the evidence suggests that just fraud in medical research

has killed millions of people over the years, millions of people. And it's continuing to do harm, right? And when it comes to statins, there are new drugs now that are there to lower cholesterol. They're trying to push those drugs, which are more expensive. And separate to the statin issue, one of the things I demonstrated with research in a published journal, you know, with independent cardiologists, is that there is actually no relationship with lowering so-called bad LDL cholesterol and preventing heart attack. I think a lot of people that watch this show realize that, you know, we've covered how, you know, Coca-Cola sugar industry really changed the narrative, made it all about cholesterol, not about sugar. Yeah. One of the, I think, probably the biggest story that, you know, woke up a lot of people around the world.

world was Vioxx. This is just a clip from your documentary about that. There is absolute proof that Merck knew about the cardiovascular risk, not just when the article was published, but they knew about the cardiovascular risk the day that the data from the Vigor trial were unblinded. Their chief scientist is quoted in the Wall Street Journal in an email that he wrote to his colleagues saying, I'm paraphrasing now, saying, I'm paraphrasing now, saying, I'm It's a shame the cardiovascular risks are there, meaning he knew that there was an increased risk of serious cardiovascular complications.

It's a shame the cardiovascular risks are there, but the drug will do well and we will do well. We will do well, meaning the executives with their stock options will benefit from the sale of Vioxx, which on the first day of Viox, unblinding, they understood, doubled the risk of serious cardiovascular complications. I mean, this is one of the most horrific stories I covered it extensively over the years. I remember, I mean, to begin with, this is just a painkiller that gets on the market. They've hidden the data. In the trials, when they finally were on trial, it was clear in their emails with each other. They're almost like laughing with each other.

people are going to die, but by the time they figured that out, will have made so much money. It overcame every other painkiller on the market, only to find out it's no more effective than your standard pain killers. This is gruesome. I mean, this is outright murder of arguably the same amount of people as died in the Vietnam War were killed by this drug. Yeah, and it's even worse, actually. So, you know, when the FDA were alerted that there was a cardiovascular problem with Vioxx, that at least double the risk of heart attack, strokes, death, for example. They wrote to Merck, and what did Merck do?

They ignored that the FDA said there should be a black box warning on the packaging, and they doubled down on their marketing. They purchased more reprints from the New England of Medicine where the original trial was published, because their aim was that every single doctor in the United States which should have a copy of that so-called peer-reviewed journal article in Young Journal of Medicine so they could prescribe Vioxx. Now, when I give lectures and I explain this to people, I ask people from the audience,

and they're shocked, like, how would you describe this behavior? And people come up with all sorts of things, evil, murderer. But the actual definitive or the best diagnosis to describe this behavior by these companies, which isn't my opinion, although I agree with it. It comes from Robert Hare, forensic psychologist, behind the original international classification of psychopathy. And he says, big corporations in the way that they conduct their business, they're pathologically self-interested, actually fulfill all the criteria for psychopath as entities. So that means incapacity experience guilt, repeated lying conning others for profit.

You know, there are so many criteria that they fulfill. Now, bringing it to the modern day, because it's just because we just went through this. On that front, we just had a giant rally. Vonnihari was just outside of Kellogg's, just to make that point. bringing, you know, tens of thousands of signatures to say, stop putting the poison in our cereals that are illegal in Europe. Like, why are we getting poison in America? And you already know how to make a product that's not doing that. They're outside the door.

They're not being let in. They're being told, we're not going to have a conversation with you. There's nobody here. And they look up in the window to the executive suite. And apparently there's, like, people holding up a sign, get off of our lawn. You know, and so that psychopathy, what you're saying is these people that work in this business know we're putting colored dyes in your food that are endocrine disruptors that are incredibly, you know, dangerous for your children causing ADD. The studies are there and our FDA doesn't seem to do anything about it. And these people seem to have no remorse, no concern for the children, forget around the world, just even in their own nation, don't care.

I mean, it's just like we know we're poisoning you. And just, would you please get off of our lawn? I mean, that's that attitude that Merck showed, too. Yeah, I mean, this also comes from Big Tobacco's Playbook, right? So Big Tobacco, when they knew that their products were harmful, they actually started marketing them as being good for you, right? At one stage, it sounds crazy now. But at one stage, cigarettes were marketed as being good for asthma, right?

Right. So they're following the same. And pregnancy. It'll help you have a smaller baby so you can give birth easier. Yeah, absolutely. So actually, I even tell my patients, if a food, product is marketed as healthy, it likely has the opposite effect on health. Don't touch it.

No, I'm very clear about that. Absolutely. But coming back to the psychopathy thing as well, Dell, even in the modern day, you know, in 2021, I remember, and I know we've talked to this in a lot of detail, but it's interesting to see the parallels how things have not changed probably, is that when the COVID vaccine got mandated, it was well into 2021, when they started using, and governments around the world in our country in the UK, November 2021. By that stage, it became very obvious at that stage that it was very obvious that it was, it was

It wasn't stopping transmission, and there were definitely serious harms. We didn't know the extent, but it was serious harms. Why then mandate it? And when I heard that, my first instinct was, knowing about the Viox scandal, I said this most likely must have come from the drug companies. And only earlier this year, investigative journalist Lee Fang, I think you covered it on the high wire, he uncovered that Pfizer had secretly paid tens of thousands of dollars, $100,000 to grassroots organizations that were credible to push the mandate narrative. So in my opinion, in my opinion, it is likely when Pfizer knew that this vaccine was causing serious harm, that's when they doubled down on the mandate narrative to get people distracted because if it's mandated, it must be safe. It must be safe. Could be, I predicted it was going to be mandated before the pandemic even started.

I said, there's going to be a pandemic. It's going to be, it's going to happen so they can mandate a vaccine on all adults. Who knows? I mean, it is. There's so much that's suspect about it. But I've always said this about Merck, specifically with the Vioxx case. One of the things I've said, you murdered it, you know, between 40 and 100,000 people, you know, and that's conservative. Frankly, those people say it's hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by a product.

You knew it was murdering them. I can't believe our country just gives you a fine. I can't believe we allow a company to still have buildings with their name on the side of it. in the United States of America after they killed more Americans than we've lost in wars against nations we're fighting. I mean, it's just unbelievable to me that it's not, I would just, if I was president for a day, be like, Merck, you're out, that's it. Go find another country. None of your products are allowed here ever again. You knowingly murdered our people.

We're not putting up with it. Instead, it's like, here's a $3 billion fine in which they still walk away with a profit. They do. They do. And no one went to jail. No one goes to jail. And the senior scientists, I think he got a lucrative job with another company. This is a problem, Dell.

And I think most people don't know that. And I think one of the things as well is really important and interesting, seeing the feedback when we've had some screenings with doctors, the response has been pretty extraordinary. Most doctors don't know this, right? Don't expect your doctor to know this is exactly what's going on. They don't understand. They think peer-reviewed evidence in a medical journal is actually, you know, an independently evaluated, and it's not.

That's one of my favorite parts of this film that I thought you really nailed something that I've been trying to put clearly, it's so clear in the film. Let's take a look at this. It's even more serious because the drug companies own the data from their clinical trials. It's so serious, Joe, when a drug company sponsors a clinical trial and they do the analyses and they write up a manuscript and they say what happened and they send it to a medical journal and it gets peer reviewed and doctors are trained that they should read and trust peer reviewed articles that are well conducted.

And that's how the system works. The peer reviewers and the editors of the medical journals don't get to see the data. They have to take the word of the drug companies that they've presented the data accurately and reasonably completely. And you only get to see it in litigation. you know, five years later, when it doesn't matter because everyone's formed their opinion. That seems insane. It's insane. And doctors don't know this.

This point blew my mind. Up until watching your film, I was under the impression, at least some group, probably shills. I was like, well, it's got to be a couple of shills that looked at all the data and came out with this product that we find out 10 years later, is killing more people than it's saving. To find out that this idea peer reviewed, that the reviewers don't see the data, I just thought, what are they doing? Judging on sentence structure, grammar? I mean, then I could be a peer reviewer. Like, no, it said exactly what they said.

They said it's good, and we believe them. I mean, it sounds insane. It's insane. But it's true. And what happens with the clinical trial normally, Dell, is the raw data is often thousands of, if not tens of thousands of pages long, right? They're getting feedback on every patient in the trial. trial almost every day. And then what they do is the drug companies who, by the way, they design the trials, right? They do their own analyses. They curate the information and they give

summary results to the regulator, right? And then the, and that's how even it gets through the regulatory process because the regulator's only seen curated information. And of course, the only interest, the primary interest of drug companies to make money, right? Through deception, obviously. So what happens when it goes to medical? Well, I'm sure they wouldn't need deception. It was a great product. It's it's a deception is necessary when you don't have a great product and you see I mean on their the argument from their perspective I have a relative that that actually is a chemist that that does make drugs and has made some famous ones and he'll always say Look, you're you're only seeing when you think about the cost of a drug you're acting that that cost but what you don't see is the 20 drugs that went through the the giant R&D and all the testing and then failed in the end hundreds of millions of

have been spent on them. So the ones that are successful have got to make back all that money. Now, it's true when you think about the cost of drug, but it also gives you the incentive of if one is even close, they just start pushing all the problems under the bed and in the closet and shut it down. We finally got something that can get us back into the pink. Absolutely, 100%. And this is not, it's not acceptable, clearly.

It's not ethical. It's not scientific. It's not good for patients. Because of course, if doctors are making clinical decisions on biased and corrupt information, at best you're going to get suboptimal outcomes at worst, you're going to do harm. Right. But also, I think it's ultimately self-defeating, Dell, because it isn't really encouraging true innovation. Because actually, if you look at most of the drugs in America that have been produced in the last 20 years,

most of them actually copies of old ones. What they do is they take an old generic drug that's off-patent. They change a few molecules here and there, and then they give it a new name, they make money on it, and then move on to the next one. So what needs to happen, if we have an independent evaluation, it will actually encourage real, true innovation. And of course, we'll protect the public from unnecessary harm as well. I mean, one of the things I think people don't really understand. We think FDA, we think CDC, NHS in England, that these regulatory agencies are doing their own studies of these products to determine safety.

Sort of like bringing the car in, we will run a crash test on it to see if it's safe. In fact, it doesn't, that's not even true for the crash test. It's the truck company or the car company does it themselves. It tells you, I think in many ways, what they've achieved. But this is the same thing here. They design the study. So they imagine how, you know, if you're going to design the study, much like COVID. I mean, if you look at the people that they accepted in the COVID trials, they're like the, you know, the Justice League.

These are the healthiest superheroes that ever been given a product, right? Forget about all the people that are obese. they weren't in the trial. All the people that have asthma weren't in the trial. So all of these things elderly weren't in the trials. So they designed the trial to be as successful as they can make it in the most successful group of people to have this narrow band of what they're actually looking for. And you get into that too.

Most of the time, they're not even proving they can stop the disease or it's some other form of a marker. Like some side epitope they're looking for or something that says maybe, you have this issue, what is to happen to fix it? Well, just on that note, before I answer that question, Del, in the COVID trials, even though you're absolutely right, they would have chosen the healthiest people that are most likely to not get side effects. The serious adverse event rate, when it was reanalyzed and published in the general vaccine, showed it two months, it was at least one in 800 serious adverse events.

So even in the healthiest group, so then you extrapolate that out and thinking, hold on a minute, this is going to be far, far worse. And that's before we talk about long-term harm. Right. What needs to be done? I think low-hanging fruit, you know, is that I think drug companies can make drugs, but they should no longer be allowed to test them themselves. They have to be independently evaluated, right?

Low-hanging fruit, most people would get behind that Dell. Most doctors, members of the public, policymakers, it's a no-brainer. You know, I believe in real democracy. And I think if we start from there, we then can at least be more confident that the information we're getting on drugs is going to be reliable in terms of benefits and harms. The reality at the moment is, even with information we have, say, for example, in statins, if people engage in true informed consent, and most people with a 1% benefit decide they don't want to take the pill, that would probably crash the drug industry overnight.

So imagine that. Practicing true ethical evidence-based medicine would destroy the drug industry. So they're going to go after those people that are advocating for that. And of course, myself and other people are constantly under attack because of that reason. And here in America, that same drug company owns your television. It owns the news agencies that should be reporting on this. Absolutely. Should be having you on, except that 50 to 70% of the drug ads you see

between your news programs is paying their bill. That's actually the boss of whatever news anchor you're watching. And I keep trying to get that through to people. The extent and size of this issue, I think, was captured in a great interview you have in your documentary. Let's take a look at this. Well, we don't know exactly how many people. are killed by research fraud in medicine, but we do know that there's an estimate that the frauds in six papers by Don Poldermans may have resulted in as many as 800,000 patient deaths,

excess patient deaths. So if one research fraudster can cause that many excess patient deaths, and we think about all the very many research frauds, with a significant proportion of research being fraudulent, 30% of gynecological randomized trials containing forced data. We're talking about many millions of people killed by research fraud in medical science. That's an incredible statement. One guy who mastered this sort of research fraud may be responsible for 800,000. thousand deaths, just himself.

I know, I know. And that, you know, that happened a few years ago as a Dutch cardiologist, and he was responsible for influencing European Society of Cardiology guidelines on the use of beta blocker, these are drugs that slow the heart rate down, specifically for people undergoing non-cardiac surgery. And that figure, I mean, it's mind-blowing, isn't it? Absolutely mind-blowing. That should be in world news.

Everybody should know about this. Right? So why is this not being publicized in the way it should be? Again, this is the power of the drug companies. I think there is also a message of hope, though, as well, Dell, which you bring out in the documentary is, of course, people can just be apathetic and think, oh my God, what do we do? Through our own experience with patients as well, and there's a wealth of literature, and

there's a big movement out there, is that actually through lifestyle changes as well, people can come off the pills, there's great case study in the film as well about one of my patients. And the next frontier, for me, which is most interesting as a cardiologist, is the fact that we can even reverse blockages of coronary arteries, right? We can reverse heart disease. And I think that gives us hope. But that's really where we need to be putting all our attention on how we really get world populations to be optimally healthy.

It doesn't come from taking a pill, unfortunately. But listen, modern medicine does a lot of great things. I think it's very good for treating people when they are sick, and that should be our focus. Acutely ill patients, that's when we should put up. But getting all these people to solve the chronic disease pandemic with pills, It's not working and it's only going to get worse if we push more pills on people. I absolutely agree.

I mean, it's really amazing to see it laid out. You do talk about these alternative, you know, natural, I mean, the fact that you could change your diet. You could start meditating and bringing down your anxiety or exercise, all of these things. And yet, our problem is this tyranny from the drug companies right now that are just controlling our regulatory agencies. the simple fix really is to clean up the regular three agencies. We've got to get here in America. You have to do it in England. We've got to get enough people and we are starting to get a very loud and irate you know I would say moving towards a majority

when you see you know all the Vanney Hari you know outside Kellogg's thousand people show up in the cold. I mean Vanity Hari shows up at the doorstep with basically I think over a half a million signatures of people that want this change, want the same cereal that they're getting in other countries. You're seeing larger and larger audiences everywhere you go on this topic, on these issues. People have had enough, and we are starting to hit a threshold where we've had enough. And we want the regulatory agencies to, I would say, stop taking funding from the industries. Yeah, 100%. I'm just super simple. Yeah. You know what I mean? Just you don't get to take any more money from these industries.

And by the way, I don't think the news agencies should be allowed to take money from you either. So that we can get real reporting. We can get a real regulatory agency study that's based on actual health and not on protecting, you know, your financiers. Yeah, absolutely. Even in this country as well, Adele, why are political parties or politicians allowed to take money from these corporations as well? Because if we're going to change the law, the people that have the power to change the law in the right way to protect the public from these excesses are the politicians. And of course, they're captured as well. This is really an oppressive corporate tyranny.

But the other downside of it, I can talk about, you know, we've got these so-called commercial or psychopathic drivers of health is we've also corporatized human beings. And the antidote to that is actually going back to basic values, honesty, integrity, speaking up, having courage, right? And if we all band together, we can definitely beat this. We can fight this problem. Where can people find your film? It's online at the moment. People can download it. It's called no farmfilm.com is the website for $10.

You know, this is we put a lot of our own effort and money into this. We want to at least recoup the costs and at some point, of course, we'll release it, you know, so everybody can watch it for free. We're trying to hit policymakers. But right now, people can download it on no farmfilm.com. Yeah, I remember when we were running around with Vax, people like, why are you charging for it? It's such good information for several reasons. I have filmmakers who were involved in making it that should get paid. I have a distribution company that should get paid. And if none of these people get paid, guess how I don't get to make the next documentary on health, right? And 100%.

This is the one documentary field where you're not allowed to make any money, but please help us, give us the best quality that we can. And that's a fair point, Dale. My co-producer, the director, Donald O'Neill, Irish, former Irish international athlete, this is his job, this is his career. You know, I'm not there for the purpose that you need to have enough to get by. But this is his job in his career. and I think people should be rewarded something for that. But you're having issues with shadow banning, right? You're having, you know, even you said,

I think you told me even celebrities are showing up at the screenings and saying, I tried to share with my audience. Yeah, meta, Facebook, Instagram, it's extraordinary. We've never seen anything like it, almost anything that's being shared on the film, even just being there. Interestingly, I have a, and we'll see where this goes, I'm telling you this first time in public. You know, I have a very close friend who's very, very supportive,

very influential guy. And he's just appalled with what's going on. And he knows Nick Clegg, who's very senior with Meta and Fosa Zuckerberg. And he's writing a letter as it is now. I mean, Nick Clegg responded to him, say, what's going on? Yeah. So let's see. Let's put it out.

I mean, honestly, what is misinformation? I mean, look, I'm used to the vaccine issue. I know they got it wrong. But this isn't even going near that. This is about a peer review corruption that has been spoken about literally by, I think, almost every, you know, ex-editor of a medical journal has been saying, we cannot recreate these studies that are happening here. We have research fraud going on. The incentive that comes up in your film of a million dollars in reprints, just simply what they get paid to print copies

of allowing these things through is how they make money. Then they take advertising, you know, from drug companies. So this whole thing is just corrupted all the way around. And there's really good people like in your film, these editors saying, you know, they're like, hello, you know what I mean? Like, man down here, we are going to, we are going to continue to kill people if someone doesn't get on top

of this. And to think that Facebook or meta is going to jump in and say, no one's allowed to see this. What do you mean? Every American would agree with you right now. I'm sure of it. You wouldn't find a doctor. You won't find a nurse. You won't find a person would disagree with you saying,

we really need for our regulatory agencies to be the ones doing the safety studies, not the drug company itself that's making money. And here's the thing, 99% of people think that is how it's happening. No, I know. They do think it's the regulatory agency doing this stuff. I believe most people are good and want to do the right thing and the hate and justice. Honestly, I think the power of this film is that if Mark Zuckerberg, you know, sat down for an hour and 50 minutes or 55 minutes to watch this film, he wouldn't be able to unsee it.

It would change his worldview for a lot of people. And they just need to watch it, and then they can form their opinion. they can give counter arguments, but I think that is the way, really, we need to get it to these people as well so that they understand what's been going on. I love that. Mark, if you're watching out there, maybe how about a new policy, when you decide to censor films by, you know, world-renowned doctors, why don't you at least watch the thing yourself? Why don't you just say, I personally watch this myself, and I am personally censoring it? Otherwise, why do you get involved with stopping censorship? Free speech is the most important right we have here in the United States of America. I've seen, I feel like we're starting to see Mark, you know, feel like he wants to break free of these shackles.

Yeah. I hope he does. Elon, of course, doing such great things with X right now. I hope all the other social media companies, you know, realize how important free speech is. Or they're going to lose it. They're going to, you know, we're going to see it taken away from them completely. So one more time, the website where people can download it. Nofarmfilm.com.

No farmfilm.com. Absolutely. All right. Well, there you have it. for $10, you can sit down with your family, bring over friends. Let's make this the biggest hit of the year. Let's make this the biggest hit right now. This is what we do so well with the high wire community.

It's a very important film, and it's a really great entry point for even, especially your doctor friends that don't want to go anywhere near the vaccine issue we cover here all the time. This they're going to understand and they're going to know a lot of these stories. And then they're going to find out why Vioxx happened, why the things they were prescribing, why they were of fraud. This is a very, very important documentary. Let's make it a hit so that more documentaries like this get made.