Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s Peer-Reviewed Paper Calls for Suspension of Covid Vaxx worldcouncilforhealth

Video Transcript:

Right. Good morning everyone. I'm Dr. Tess Laurie. I'm a co-founder of the World Council for Health and I'm also a medical doctor and a research consultant with expertise in evidence evaluation and clinical practice guideline development. I've never worked for the pharmaceutical industry and I have no conflicts of interest. The World Council for Health is a not-for-profit international collaboration of more than 160 health focus groups from 45 countries. Expert committees comprising volunteer science, medical, legal and bioethics professionals have met weekly over the past year to discuss the emerging data, events and policies related to the COVID-19 crisis. World Council for Health is managed by EBMC Squared which is a crowd-funded community interest company and we have no conflicts of interest. Coalition partners include patient groups such as UK CB family which is a patient-led support group for people injured by the COVID-19 vaccination program. We're very pleased to host this press conference today with Dr. Asim Mahatra so that he can present the findings and conclusions of his recently published papers. We will also hear from Dr. Ryan Cole-Vira Zoomlink, Technology Promitting, who is an experienced US pathologist and he will be presenting pathology findings to corroborate Dr. Mahatra's conclusions. Dr. Mahatra is a consultant cardiologist fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, president of the Public Health Collaboration and an internationally renowned expert as prevention, diagnosis and management of heart disease. Dr. Mahatra was due to present evidence to UK ministers and MPs at the inaugural meeting of the new all-party parliamentary group on vaccine damage on the 16th of September but due to the suspension of official parliamentary business following the Queen's death the meeting has been postponed. Given the public interest in releasing these important findings we invite Dr. Mahatra to share this evidence now without further delay. Thank you Dr. Mahatra the floor is yours. Thank you, Tess and I just wanted to start by thanking Tess the World Council for Health and also James Wells. I think you know he's been a store-law on all of this and for organising this event. So very briefly I'm a consultant cardiologist I've been a practicing doctor for over 20 years most of that time in the NHS have had a number of different roles currently I'm present at the scientific advisory board of a charity called the Public Health Collaboration although I'm speaking in a personal capacity today I've been affiliation with Stanford and metabolic psychiatry in it and I've also served as being on the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges at BCD Steering Group and also the Choosing Weiserly Committee as well as being a member of the Board of Trustees of the Kings Fund. So I'm bringing you today my clinical experience but also some of my knowledge around health policy because this is obviously crucial in terms of how we move forward constructively. So I want to start actually with a concept called willful blindness some of you may be aware of it. So it's something that all of us actually in different circumstances are very much capable of and willful blindness essentially is human beings turning a blind eye to clear facts in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige. And there's a history of many instances where even institutions have become willfully blind whether you look at situations such as Jimmy Savo or the midstaffs with the NHS, Harvey Weinstein even to some degree controversially maybe me saying this even during the whole history of what happened during the Holocaust many German people were probably willfully blind to what was actually really going on in those concentration camps. So I think it's something we need to be aware of that we're all capable of in certain circumstances and for me as well and as I'm going to mention through my talk you know I was willfully blind certainly in relation to the vaccine and the harms until I wasn't and that's why it's crucial that we tackle this both with compassion because there are many people who are still willfully blind and I think you know remaining in echo chambers and pointing fingers isn't getting this anywhere so we have to have some compassion for people who are in a position different to us but the way to tackle it is really with the facts and to speak with empathy to people and that's what I think we need to be doing now as we move forward. So what's worse than ignorance? The late great Stephen Hawking tells us the illusion of knowledge. So I'm going to essentially over the next 50 minutes or so discuss my recent findings so this is a publication in the Journal of Incentive Resistance it's peer-reviewed just to mention briefly I know some people have been commenting on social media somebody mentioned I'm on the editorial board there's very strict rules with the with the journal it's like criticizing Richard Hawking as the editor of the Lancet to ignore his editorials it doesn't make sense I don't have any financial link with that journal at all and there really is a non-recabacity and this publication was basically initially discussed with the editor of course with it has happened with many publications for research is it something you're interested in she said yes a scene but of course this is very controversial and I have a look at it and then decide whether it needs a peer review and I'll go for a peer review independently so this took several months actually and it went for an independent peer review and now published I spent about nine months actually conceiving the ideas thinking about it going through the data meticulously and for reasons it will become a parent I mean I was literally eating breathing and sleeping this stuff for the last nine months so I'm glad it's finally published and I'm going to present some of the findings today it's in two parts the reason one of the reasons I also chose this journal is because a journal of interest is one of the few medical journals that doesn't take funding from industry and it also allowed me to write 10,000 words most medical journal articles won't get over a thousand maybe two thousand of his research pieces I felt I needed to write this extensively not just to cover the science of the COVID vaccine as I saw it as a clinician but also to understand the root causes of the failures because without understanding that we can't move forward in a constructive way so let's just very briefly you know I think to understand the part what needs to acknowledge and understand the whole you know before all of this and even ongoing we have this big problem in the UK and this is replicated through many parts of the world you know we have a stalling life expectancy since 2010 and in many parts of the country now we now have many people living longer with chronic disease so we're getting sicker essentially we're not getting so that that shouldn't make any real sense you know with everything we know with all the information out there with access to information with so-called the the wonders of modern medicine why is it that our health is now starting to get worse and I've got to to some degree think from as my responsibilities as doctor and even to think about the medical profession and think about are we actually doing the best that we can do as a profession and and are we actually inadvertently maybe contributing not deliberately to the worsening health crisis so this is one of the most important slides of my talk so I'm going to spend a little bit of time on this and I think if people understand this in depth then it explains many problems actually going on with the world today so this is the evidence-based medicine trial this is an analytical framework for teaching and practicing medicine and I think all of us here would want you know our health our mental health our physical health to be optimized that's called improving patient outcomes this is you know doctors clinicians healthcare practitioners in order to improve patient outcomes treat illness manage risks reduce suffering we use our individual clinical expertise the best available evidence and last but not least which is crucial taking into consideration patient preferences and values now this makes sense as a concept but then if you take a step back and understand one thing if the best available evidence is biased or corrupted or incorrect and or you're not taking the consideration patient preferences values you're best going to get so often to allow them to be a patient and a worse course harm and the problem we've got now is the evidence-based medicine has been hijacked it has become an illusion by commercial interests and the reason for that is and it's for me this is at the root of the healthcare crisis is based upon a number of seven seven sins if you like so biased funding of research research that's likely to be funded because it's likely to be profitable not beneficial for patients by supporting medical journals bias patient pamphlets by supporting the media commercial conflicts of interest defensive medicine and last but not least an inability for medical some medical quickly that failed to see doctors how to comprehend and communicate health statistics and this is crucial to understanding also the benefits and harms of the vaccine next life please so how reliable how good is the best available evidence in it from a broad perspective we've given these concepts but how good is evidence-based medicine and the sad reality is is that you know John I need this who I cite as being the probably you know I would say a Stephen Hawking-like figure in medicine he's the most cited medical scientist in the world professor of medicine and statistics at University of Stanford and he wrote this great paper which you can look up online 2017 called how to survive the medical misinformation mess and what he says he names a number of factors behind this medical misinformation mess one is much published research is not reliable offers no benefits to patients or is not useful to decision makers now I think he's being a bit polite there he wrote a previous paper many years before this actually entitled white which is the most cited paper ever published why most published research findings are false okay most health care professionals are not aware of this problem don't think your doctor knows about this then doctors and this is something part of medical training and it's not difficult stuff actually when you actually spend time looking at it and understanding it properly most medic freshions lack the necessary skills to evaluate the reliability of usefulness of medical science and then last but not least patients and families then lack relevant accurate medical evidence and skill guidance at the time of medical decision making and this is also one of the things he writes in his paper in a different paper he says ignorance of this problem even at the highest levels of academic and clinical leadership is profound to stay on this slide for a second please and I can tell you from my own discussion you know I've spoken to people at the very highest levels whether it's you know three I'll talk about that later three if one was a current and two former secretary states for health I've spoken to people like the chair of the BMA I've spoken to people the chair of the medical colleges I've had one one conversation to people and it is true that this issue is even at the very highest levels not fully understood when the whole vaccine mandate debate was going on in the NHS I did a lot of work behind the scenes and any an opportunity I had mainstream media to basically say this is unethical unscientific and we're going to lose lots of NHS staff and it wasn't even practical that we should introduce this and in one of the conversations I had at the time was with the chair of the BMA who I know very well and once I'd become aware of the evidence suggesting there was a problem with this vaccine I explained to him and he went spoke to Sergeant Javid and we had exchanges and that message those messages were going there but one of the things he said to me when I spent two hours walking in through the data that I had at that point he said I see my can tell you one thing most of the people certainly in health policy that I know and you know this main clube the chief medical officer he said I don't think they're critically appraising the evidence and the way you are next slide please the other interesting thing that Johnny this has points out on his paper is that most the greater the finance and this is interesting think about this the greater the financial and other prejudices in a scientific field the less likely the research findings are to be true and he thought something recently that's been extremely lucrative next slide so you know I've been a campaigner on this issue for about 10 years I became very much aware there were big problems with medical research I looked at it into it in a lot of detail because I as a clinical doctor was seeing more patients with chronic disease more people being over medicated more misery and I knew that population health wasn't improving of course the BC epidemic is part of that as well and in 2018 I was invited speak in the European Parliament with a talk entitled Big Food and Big Farmer killing for profit question mark and one of the things I think that's really important for people to understand as well trying to take the big picture view before we hoping on the vaccine is that drug companies have a legal obligation to produce profit for their shareholders they do not have any legal obligation to give you the best treatment although most of us would like that to be the case and this is pointed out by Peter Wilmshurst in the centre of evidence basement as in 2014 Peter Wilmshurst is a cardiologist and and and and one of the things he points out is that the real scandals is that regulators fail to prevent misconduct by industry and that doctors institutions and medical journals who have a responsibility to patients and scientific integrity collude with industry for financial gain and by that point for me I've got to a situation where you know I gave this quote I said this you know in the European Parliament I said honest doctors can no longer practice on its medicine we have a complete health care system failure and an epidemic of misinformed doctors and misinformed and unwittingly harmed patients again bigger picture view so what is the what is the history of the drug industry because of course the drug industry are most most medical research now sponsored by the drug industry most of those clinical decisions that doctors are making in the consultation room are coming from study sponsored by the drug industry but there is a huge problem in terms of the impact of one over-medicated society so Peter Gosha co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration many years ago did a analysis and his estimates are that prescribed medications now are the third most common cause of death after heart disease and cancer because of side effects and they are mostly preventable okay that's pretty extraordinary stuff and one of the other problems behind all of this is there is a huge history without naming any particular drug company here a fraud you know so between 2009 2014 most of the top 10 drug companies were found guilty of committing fraud for hiding data on harms illegal marketing of drugs which reached you know about 13 billion dollars US dollars and what's what Peter Gosha points out in this paper in the BMJ is he says that you know actually what happens is they are essentially nobody gets fucking no and he's make more money from the sales of the drugs that have been marketed illegal or being fraudulent due from the fine so it's a cost of business for them it's not about conspiracy theories it's a cost of business and I'll come on to later explain exactly what's going on with these with these big corporations and why they do this and his solutions and this has nothing has changed by the way so nothing has changed in the system despite all this evidence of lots of harms of happen to patients and he says it's time to introduce tougher sanctions as a number of crimes not the detection rate seems to be increasing finds need to be so large that companies risk going bankrupt top executives should be held personally accountable so they would need to think of the risk of imprisonment when they consider performing or acquiescing in these crimes okay so just try to be devil's advocate here okay Dr. Mahatra that's fine cost of business blah blah but isn't the overall effect of the drug industry great isn't all these amazing innovative drugs you hear politicians talking about innovation all these new devices all these new drugs isn't it overall going to be beneficial for us nothing could be further from the truth so this is data I'm going to show you some other data in a minute if you look at data from France and this was this looked almost a thousand drugs that were approved by the regulator in France between 2002 and 2011 and what they found was most drugs were copies of all ones so essentially they're changing molecules here and there they pay to the new drug and one of the reasons for that is for basic science research the drug companies actually end up spending about 19 to 20 times more on marketing than they do on research and development of basic science you know new molecular entities and then they looked at okay what drugs actually had an extra therapeutic value were proven to be beneficial better than the previous drug for patients and actually that was around 15 sorry around 8% but if you look at the third sort of if you just look here more risk of harm than benefit you'll find that 15.6% so double the amount of drugs that were found to be beneficial were proven to be more harmful than benefit so what how what does one conclude from all of this we just go to the next slide if you look at the data in America Marcy Angel the former editor the new and journal of medicine in an analysis between 2000 and 2008 of drugs in America and basically found the only 11% of new drugs are truly innovative and 75% of drugs are essentially copies of old ones what else does she say you know what does the the former editor of the highest impact medical journal in the world she says it is no longer possible to trust much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines I take no pleasure in this conclusion which I reach slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the new and journal of medicine is she alone no I wrote this in my piece towards the end of my piece Richard Horton the editor of the Lancet and I wonder whether this is a cry for help because I wonder whether Richard Horton and I don't Richard by the way he lives near me I bump into him the street every so often we have a chat it's very very nice chat I haven't talked about this specifically but he knows I've written about him and I wonder whether there is a conflict there not in the not in a bad sense but in the sense that the Lancet of course takes a lot of money from industry but maybe Richard also himself knows that there's there's other big issues and he basically mentioned in an article you run 2015 you can look this up that he had a it was a chat in households meeting organized by the welcome trust he said many eminent scientists were and he said that conclusions essentially were possibly half this published literature to maybe untrue. Formatism to the BMJ Richard Smith in an article a few years ago wrote about the fact in British institutions there is a big problem with covering up research misconduct and he wrote something is rotten in the state of British medicine and has been for a long time. What's the overall net effect of the pharmaceutical industry certainly in the last few decades it's very clear it's been negative okay if you even if you just look at the waste the colossal waste and who's paying for it we are paying for this the tax payer is paying for this you've got big corporations making all this money they also then don't pay their taxes so we've got a system if you like which I you know I don't know it's almost like we've got a system which steals from the poor and is giving to the rich and you wonder why society is disintegrating next slide please so what's actually going on in British institutions so there was an inquiry set up by Norman to Norman Lam I know Norman very well who was then the chair of the Science and Technology Committee in Parliament and he set up an inquiry into research in February 2017 and Peter Wulmshurst just highlights a few of these issues and he submitted evidence I'm just going to quickly go through them what point by point so he says academic institutions bear responsibility for the pressure to publish for career advancement that can result in research misconduct a record of prominent publication is likely to track future funding which institutions demand and good publicity which institutions desire other pressures from misconduct come from association of academic institutions with industries such as when investigators or their institutions hold patents or shares or they receive payments from industry so there is a financial pressure to publish research that will be profitable for the company and to suppress negative findings some publications are simply organized criminal activities which maybe it would be best of the sponsors when prominent academics have paid large sums of money to publish false data about industry or a sponsor maybe one of the victims when payments of conducting research are made to investigators who simply fabricate data medical journals have a financial pressure to publish positive findings of research on drugs and medical devices because their manufacturers buy reprints so they pay the journals if they get a publication so they can use those reprints of the publish article as marketing material reps okay so this can even be hundreds of thousands sometimes millions of pounds with this just give through them all the next bits please thank you to protect the reputations academic institutions conceal research misconduct with destroy evidence and silence whistleblowers i'm going to come onto there's a reason i'm telling you this stuff journals are reluctant to admit they publish flawed research so they come through refused to publish failees to replicate fear of libel action now this is a too much legal power if you like from the drug fear of libel action contributes to the failure to expose research misconducts because lenient sanctions are imposed institutions believe that the misconduct is not very serious a potential research fraudsters are not deterred so what does Peter Wulmsurce and his experience and sort of litigation with the drug industry over many years haven't been a researcher and in fact one of the interesting stories that he was involved in a drug for half any many years ago he found that that drug was causing significant fron beside tenure in about 50% of people who's dropping their platelets and he wants to publish it and he was basically threatened by the industry that he was funded by and he there was a big legal case that went on and he won eventually so what he says is i believe that the best way to address the problems of research misconduct would be by making serious forms of research misconduct criminal offenses with meaningful sanctions and have allegations of estrogate by statutory independent body of legal powers it basically the GMC for example another organizations you say are not fit for this particular purpose next slide please how back can this be you know this should have probably been a headline user all around the world so there was a cardiologist a Dutch cardiologist who was found very prominent his guidance on the use of beta blockade drugs for non cardiac surgery was used in European society cardiology guidelines and ultimately was found out that his research was fraudulent completely fraudulent and it was estimated and he was fired from his job obviously and it was estimated that the use of beta blockers in a clinical settings recommended please come back recommended by his fraudulent research was likely to be responsible wait for it for 800,000 excess patient deaths in Europe okay 10,000 excess patient deaths per year for eight years this is absolutely extraordinary now this wasn't you know one thing you got to understand this is that all about financial gain you know one of the things for academics is power and prestige that comes with publications with tenure going further up in the department they're not sort of rolling lots of cash and going off on expensive orders some of them may well be doing that but for them it's more about the power and prestige they get and if they're supported by industry and the problem is university research over the years since the 90s there's more and more funding coming from the drug industry used to be much less and we'll come on to what why that's a problem shortly next slide please so again just as part of my advocacy and again this is rather this is all in the paper and don't worry it'll all make sense when you come onto the vaccine is that I worked with the medical oncologist for a year and I convinced and I sat on the table with all the chairs of the medical oncologist were all colleges physicians were all colleges surgeons charity academy and I said listen and this is partly based upon what was available the BMJ Launcher campaign 2012 to wind back the harm to too much medicine I said we should coordinate this with the medical profession do the medical profession and the medical royal college chairs do they understand that there's too much medicine issues a major issue major problem problem with fraud problem with over medication how do we tackle this so I convinced some of this was a long again peer review paper two of the co-authors I was a lead author on this two of the co-authors one was a chair of the GMC at the time and the other one the chair of the medical oncologist and basically one of the conclusions as well about we said there needs to be a campaign to wind back the harm to too much medicine and and with the health system as it is doctors also have an ethical responsibility to reduce a wasted use of clinical resources because in a health system with finite resources one doctor's waste is another patient still a okay again really important slide again crucial and this is something that isn't happening and one of the things we mentioned in our paper is about when we come back to the evidence-based medicine slide informed consent must involve transparent communication of risk and benefit of any intervention talking to patients in a way that they can understand using numbers they can understand okay so misleading health statistics is a major issue there are many ways of presenting a benefit relative risk or absolute risk okay so if you communicate relative risk and I'll explain that very briefly and this is not rocket science you know a GCSE mass student could understand this very simply okay so if you can communicate relative risk as opposed to the absolute risk which you should be doing it can lead lay people and doctors to overestimate the benefits of a medical intervention so let me give you an example if you look at data on the use of statin drugs cholesterol-owned drugs to prevent stroke in people with type 2 diabetes you look at that data if you look at that data it suggests that using a statin gives you a 48% relative risk reduction having a stroke over four years that sounds pretty impressive doesn't it what does it actually mean when you look at the data we actually reduce the risk of suffering the stroke from 28 in a thousand to 15 in a thousand therefore you've reduced 13 out of a thousand strokes if you look at the randomized controlled trial data so 13 over 28 is 14 times 148 percent but for an individual what it actually means is your absolute risk reduction is 1.3 percent in other words and this is when I practice medicine when I talk to my patients when that data available I always communicate in these terms I will say to that patient I will not say take this pill your 48% less likely to have a stroke which sounds very impressive I will say if you take this pill religiously for the next four years there's a one in 77 chance it's going to prevent you having a stroke and by the way this is still based upon industry-sponsored data likely exaggerated benefits harms and the plague so all of that is part of the conversation now mismatch framing and medical journals how do medical journals report findings okay so if a treatment reduces a risk of developing a disease from 10 to 7 in a thousand but increases the harm from 7 to 10 in a thousand exactly the same the journal will report the benefits as a 30% relative risk reduction but the harms are 0.3 percent when they're exactly the same how common is this a third of the articles published in the BMJ the Lancet and Jama between 2004 and 2006 it has got better but it's still not far from perfect use mismatch frame this is a joke it's an absolute fast if it wasn't so serious it would be a fast it's very serious stuff and if you present data in this way you're going to have an exaggerated benefit of the drug and you're going to underestimate the harms now don't just take my word from it for it the world-leading researcher the most eminent person in health statistics good gigarenser of the director of the max plank Institute former director of the time director of the max plank Institute in Berlin wrote in a world health organization bulletin 2009 it is an ethical imperative that every doctor and patient understand the difference between absolute relative risks to protect patients against unnecessary anxiety and manipulation in other words I would say it is unethical or ethically dubious to not explain to patients when it comes to drug treatment to you know this what the absolute benefits and the harms of the drug are and and then I publish another paper with the chair of medical colleges who they need to say that this and this needs to be part of medical training because actually interesting that when you look at data and you present information to patients in this way one it doesn't cause worse outcomes they tend to reduce less treatment patients tend to opt through informed consent to have less drugs less less interventions less surgery so they're less likely to get harmed and they're more empowered they feel more satisfied that's what we should be doing and probably say a lot of money in the NHS okay let's get to the chase all right so the covid mRNA vaccines so despite so why was I willfully blind why was I willfully blind I was one of the first people to have the covid 19 vaccine I in January 2021 I held time the vaccine center and had the leftovers because as you know the first the high risk people were taking the vaccine there was a couple of personal reasons one was my dad was very worried we'd lost my mom a few earlier he was very worried and fearful of covid like many people were and he was worried that I was going to get covid and whatever else so he was on my case please come and have you know we can get you get the vaccine helping the vaccine center blah blah blah that was one of the reasons the other reasons what what was the um I at the time it not even conceive and I can tell you this is still a problem right now this very moment and I've spoken to doctors recently you still have this issue 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 it wasn't you know I wouldn't even go there you know I was getting sent stuff which I considered at the time and by the way some of it may well be this and excuse me for these terms but I was being sent at the time stuff that I considered complete anti-vaccinonsense one of my friends is Grinder Chudder the film director you may know of her bend it like back home blinded by the light and she comes to me for medical advice all the time and she was saying to me a seam you know I'm getting all this stuff and I said Grinder this is this complete nonsense I said and I still believe this to be true by the way when you look at traditional vaccines compared to all the other drugs we prescribe they are probably one of the safest and that is still true and therefore and I didn't come in sort of point fingers and say these people are loons or anything like that good morning Britain she tweeted out I've had the vaccine because Dr Mahottra convinced me sent me some information and then I went on good morning Britain and I and they said what's going on with vaccine hesitancy I said we have to understand where does coming from because we know the history of the drug industry but I said still vaccines are some of the safest in the history of medicine next slide please and just to you know reemphasize that now I know there's still a controversy and some people have got you know issues around other things like MMR etc but we're not this is not part of the discussion and if you look the World Health Organization and you look at the data and I look at this quite carefully you know vaccines still are probably one of more than medicines not all vaccines necessarily but they have contributors considerably to improving life expectancy and probably you know save around four to five million lives a year according to the WHO so that I'm saying this is because that is also that was my mindset that still is my mindset when it comes to traditional vaccines so what happened well over a few months conversations with various people started to make me think a little bit differently so one of the people that I consider and I won't name him he's one of the brightest cardiologists in the country very high scientific integrity I worked with him I published with him a bit younger than me and he came to me and he works in a cardiac center as an international cardiologist and he said I see I just want to tell you something I said I've not had the I met him in sort of April last year he said I've not had the vaccine and I said really and he's a very smart guy I mean he publishes for fun you know you can take papers apart and he said there's something one I'm a bit uncertain about this new technology which I didn't know about at the time and he said the other thing is I'm low risk and he was right he understood that he was low risk late 30s he's low risk of COVID but he said the other thing that really concerned if he said supplementary appendix of the original Pfizer trial or let's improve the drug he said I'm hoping this is not a true this is erroneous this may be just coincidence but he said there were four cardiac arrests in the vaccine group and one in the placebo and he said that concerns me I said okay fine and I kind of listened to him but I carried on you know and then and then what happened after that is my father suffered a sudden cardiac arrest in July last year many of you may know of this it was quite harrowing experience my dad was my best friend last time I made a member of my immediate family I'm a cardiologist his whole life that was great he was very healthy and it was very shocking to everybody in the community because this guy was super fit you know I ruptured my Achilles I was a I was a Padminton champion in Manchester Manchester school's Padminton champion after my mom's death we were spending more time together we played Padminton for the first time in about 20 years and I'm I'm pretty fit I'm not just you know I'm very you know into my fitness and my 72 year old dad took me to almost an hour into a Padminton match where we could barely breathe he beat me for the first time in the first game and I ruptured my Achilles and part of me was proud that my dad was still it was that fit they was able to do that that was only two years ago so all of it didn't make sense got a post mortem done on him didn't make sense to me you know I'm a cardiologist that does a lot of research and understands how coronary disease develops type progressors and others in a lot of detail he had two critical narrows in his arteries and we knew we had heart scans a few years earlier he didn't have anything significant his lifestyle in fact had got better since then didn't make any sense and I just thought what was this was his stress what was I couldn't explain it and then a number of things happened to sorry this come back and a number of things happened and simultaneously which I know this got a lot of attention at the time and I had to so I got contacted by a whistle blow in a very prestigious very prestigious British institution I won't name it well let's say it's one of the most in the world prestigious institutions and he told me that there is a group of researchers cardiologists in this department who had actually accidentally found through use of coronary imaging that in vaccinated versus unvaccinated there was a huge signal of coronary inflammation related to the mRNA vaccine and they they had a meeting and they said we're not going to publish these findings because it may threaten our funding for the drug industry now after I did this GB News interview he then informed me because obviously they saw it someone saw it non disclosure agreements were sent out to several of these people now this yeah and I trust this person of course I can't produce the exact evidence here but let's just say I implicitly trust this person there's no reason for him to lie about it what where was was this replicated anyway independently with people that didn't know each other yes so Stephen Gundt republished an abstract in circulation and what he found this is very interesting this really concerned me is that within about eight weeks of people having the mRNA vaccine of people he was following up in the middle age there was a massive increase of coronary inflammatory markers that increase risk of heart attacks from 11% at five years to 25% which I can tell you was a massive increase now what does that tell you if this is true and it's likely has some legitimacy certainly with the data I'm going to show you now it means that the mRNA vaccine could be accelerating coronary artery disease so let's say you're due to have a heart attack you know you don't know about this you're going to have a heart attack in 10 years you suddenly might be having a heart attack in one year so it's going to accelerate coronary disease that's one of the things and data was coming and I got contacted by journalists saying we've got this unexplained increase in heart attacks in different hospitals so I went on GB news and I thought okay and of course then I thought about my dad and I thought listen now I need to look at this in detail let me try and use evidence-based medicine let's look at the data properly let's look at absolute risk reduction let me look at where the harms are let me look in places I've never even gone to before and that's what obviously you know the paper explains in detail so the first thing is well what did the so we talked about absolute risk reduction and I think we can one of the reasons I didn't really look into this in detail at the beginning is I was under the impression that the vaccine would prevent transmission so the numbers you know it was difficult how many people would benefit because I thought well actually in the population a vaccine that's relatively safe if you give it and it prevents infection even if it's 1% of people initially it's going to have a knock on effect and it's going to protect many more people we obviously now know that's completely false that isn't true we don't even know if it was true at the beginning but we broke down looked at the actual data and the original trial that it's the approval of the drug that people weren't having discussions informed discussions about revealed you had to vaccinate 119 people to prevent one person from being infected with COVID-19 the original Wuhan strain something else I only found few months ago which shocked me and this is there from the FDA so one of the things that happened shortly after both me and my dad had the vaccine we got sent public health England it was public health England that's I'm sent out some free antibody tests and they wanted us to reply to what are you know pinprick and finger have you got antibodies I was actually a later I was like ah the vaccine works I tweeted out because anti-antibody was antibody positive is it of any use doesn't appear to be not going to the FDA in May last year the FDA you can look this up the US the FDA is reminding the public and healthcare providers that results from perinion authorised SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate a person's level of immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time and especially after the person has received a COVID-19 vaccination why was it not publicised all across the news we're currently we've got these new Omicron variant vaccines that have been tested on 8 mice that are using a pure surrogate of antibodies which we don't know has any benefit whatsoever with no clinical outcome data this is not this is a miscarriage of medical science this is complete in total nonsense so what about okay so let's just accept okay doesn't have the great effects on infection but of course an narrative changed it's not going to prevent you getting infected but it'll prevent you from serious illness and death so actually working with Claire or having knowledge in the paper Claire and the heart group what we decided to do I ask Claire to look into this is there is there some way from real world data not a modeling study not extrapolations real world data from possible admissions in the UK to calculate what the numbers needed to treat would be or vaccinate would be to prevent a COVID death now during the Delta wave going to the next slide we're able to actually look at different age groups because UKHSA had that data we had data on hospitalizations and death actually for a hundred thousand vaccinated versus unvaccinated great this is interesting now there are problems with this data in the sense we don't correct for confounding factors so for example it's Carl Henigan has pointed out director center of evidence-based medicine some of his patients that were that died from COVID-19 who were unvaccinated were terminally ill and they decided they were going to have the vaccine so this isn't corrected for that but so it actually probably is an exaggeration of benefit but if you look at the Delta wave and we can give you some figures here if you look at the Delta wave so this is a bottom slide here looking at last year the whole wave four months is if you look at people over 80 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 79 13 hundred if you're 60 to 69 2650 59 next slide please what about Omicron I did put this in the paper we only had about three months of data earlier this year but this is pretty extraordinary stuff again Omicron how useful is a vaccine or the traditional vaccine we've been using to prevent a COVID death from Omicron according to real world data if you're over 80 you've got to vaccinate 7300 people to prevent one COVID death 17,000 next decade younger 30,000 63,000 167,000 this is the absolute benefit in preventing a COVID death probably best case scenario now there's something else that's important to note the original trial randomized control trial which have supposed to correct for everything quite a large trial about 40,000 people done by Pfizer and even Moderna did not show any statistically significant reduction in COVID death now for me and there may be also reasons for that it's something to think about because it makes you want to hold on a minute the gold standard trial didn't show any statistically significant reduction now the Omicron V wasn't powered it wasn't enough people but if 40,000 people wasn't enough to show statistically significant reduction in death it means the benefit in reducing death is probably very very small it's not nonexistent but it's tiny and we come back to share decision making who was told about this and if you told this no that's where we need to move forward we need to look at this in a bit more granular way okay next slide one of the other issues as well to mention briefly which probably won't surprise you when I spoke to the chair of the BMA I mean it's interesting I said you know he said I seen my think most of my colleagues and this is historical as well and it may surprise you many people in health policy actually make their decisions on media stories so the media reporting like she said to me I think a lot of my colleagues are getting information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC and we know that media storing is not a media reporting isn't very accurate this was published in in German journal medicine a few years ago looking at US how accurate were health stories in terms of explaining the actual benefits or harms or whatever an intervention and a five of 10 review criteria were basically unsatisfactory cost benefits harms absolutely risk and benefits quality of the evidence comparison to new approach with alternatives okay so who's controlling the media well certainly in America there's a huge control of the media by sponsorship by the drug industry less so here but it's still a major problem okay you may stop as they hold on a minute okay fine media aren't reporting it correctly you know some of these doctors maybe getting information from the media and correctly but we've got regulators the regulators are gonna you know we should listen to them last night on GV News Dan Wutzen and of course this needs to happen we have to get responses from the regulator where to the regulator who said we've looked at the yellow card scheme and we can't see any link between cardiac arrest the yellow card scheme isn't the way to look at it's very interesting carefully worded answer by the way from the MHRI what's the problem BMJ investigation done by Marion Demassi not so long ago basically showed and in most of the funding of the many countries around the world of the regulator comes from the pharmaceutical industry okay 65% of the FDA 86% of the MHRI now many doctors don't know this I give a talk at the BMA and your conference in a fringe meeting the chair of the BMA was it was got smacked he didn't believe me there's before his public I said 86% of the funding of the MHRI comes from the drug industry they didn't believe these are people who are going on TV and saying this has been independently evaluated right most healthcare practitioners are not aware of the system failures next slide please so don't the lights in that BMJ piece who the sociologist would look at the regulator regulator many years and how they've evaluated different drugs this is basically what you conclude is that can we trust the regulators essentially no according to him it's the opposite of having a trustworthy organization independently and rigorously assessing the medicines they're not rigorous they're not independent they are selective and they withhold data doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can't be trusted so long as they're captured by industry funding right so do we have any high quality evidence on the vaccine harms I've told you about the benefits that we've calculated from real world data and this is for me in some ways probably a smoking gun the original randomized control trial data this was actually initially a pre-print now it's been peer-reviewed published in the general vaccine you can look this up re-analyzed so this was a number of very eminent scientists associated with the BMJP to Doshi Robert Kaplan from Stanford Joseph Freeman who's a lead author I've also spoke to about this and I'll tell you what he told me what they found they went back into the FDA's website health Canada website and we're able to look at reports you know available information looking at serious adverse events and what they found in the original trials where everything is corrected as supposed to be the gold standard you know in terms of age and risk factors in everything all right to look at where benefit of an intervention they found the risk of serious adverse events that were reported and people in the vaccine group was significantly higher than the risk of people being hospitalized with COVID this was the original this is phyton medurna trials combined and I think about this for a second it was these trials alone before we had any of the data that led to the approval and roll out of the vaccine I just roll out coercion mandates people in threatened with their jobs my cousin in America civil civil engineer was essentially told unless you have a booster you may probably lose your job okay this is just unbelievable if this is true and it's likely true this is what the evidence is telling us what's going on here so we're talking about a rate of about 1 in 800 according to this now has it's been replicated anyway yes Norway has been very good looking at pharmacovigilance data and assessing the actual reporting of what we call the yellow card scheme over there specifically on serious adverse events so after two doses of Pfizer what's documented in the real world in Norway which have been quite good at this looking at things that cause disability hospitalizations life-changing event 1 in 926 by the way my own view is this is likely a gross underestimate and the reason for that is because this only covers two months of the trial if the vaccine accelerates coronary artery disease of course that's one mechanism of harm then you're going to see this over several months in causing problems and potentially cardiac arrests which are not going to be picked up from the original trial the other thing that traditionally pharmacovigilance data are what my paper for serious adverse events only usually represents 10% so what's reported is usually thought to be only 10% of the true events by the way I think my dad certainly the contribute factor to his death what the back was a vaccine I haven't done a yellow card report how many other people are not even aware that what's happened to Uncle Tom or one of their relatives or even themselves is linked to this next slide please now this is also extraordinary the World Health Organization before the vaccine was rolled out approved a list of potential serious adverse effects that could happen could happen from the mRNA vaccines based upon a number of criteria covid okay it's one of the reasons is covid and spike protein in serious covid that's one of the mechanisms that could cause harm then technology that was being used animal studies and harms have been picked up from other vaccines look at this list let's stop and look at this list for a while the cardiac complications are extraordinary and see the problem is and I see this now I remember having conversation very recently so I have a number of patients by the way with vaccine injuries because I've looked at it and I've looked at their history trying to figure out what's caused the problem one of them developed maybe in the 50s developed severe left ventricle dysfunction and she's still got that within a few weeks of having the jab her cardiologist her local cardiologist dismisses it as being impossible because they don't know we didn't expect it's something like this could do these things slide now is there a mechanism of harm potentially yes the spike protein the lipid nanoparticles and Clare will obviously in the Q&A maybe we'll talk about this as well a little later and it seems to be the evidence suggests that it gets distributed throughout the body and can stay there for four months and the mechanism of harm this is published in cell suggests that it can cause inflammatory reactions or direct toxicity to the cell so we do know there is a plausible biological mechanism of how this can harm different organ systems now what's going on with our fossil cardiac arrest so the heart group are very good and they've looked at you know ambulance data national ambulance data and essentially between 2021 and 2021 and 2020 so after the vaccine rollout we found there was an extra 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrest that I'd explained you can see a blip here by the way it's important to note at the beginning of 10, 2020 whether these are calls for cardiac respiratory arrest and this was of course during the first wave when a lot of people were dying at home nursing homes we don't have the granular data which is what we do need where the ambulance service will have every individual patient what was the reason for the call was it COVID was a respiratory then cause cardiac arrest but that should have stopped and it still continued well into 2021 and there was an excess okay so that's one thing to signal of something going on which needs to be investigated next slide now data from Israel published in nature reports and by the way there has if you look at this has been a warning on that as a discussion going on calls for retraction of the paper I wonder why so these scientists found in 2021 as well they specifically found this is very disturbing in people age between 16 and 19 there was a 25% increase in heart attack or sudden cardiac death 25% increase and they specifically said this was associated with the vaccine the mRNA vaccine not associated not associated with COVID okay so what do we know we have to go through these now how do we conclude certainly with the vaccine coming towards an end the end if we pleased to know I know I'm going on for a while here but there's some important information needs to know so what we do know for sure what can we conclude there's no protection from infection now okay that's pretty much accepted the initial protection from the ancestral variant seems to be in absolute terms about 119 there was no reduction in COVID mortality or all causes mortality from the original randomized control trials the RCTs that led to the people of the mRNA products suggest 1 in 800 vaccineeas will suffer you know there'll be a serious adverse event and then when you look at the number of absolute benefit of a Delta variant the absolutely benefit from over 80 year olds is 1 in 230 from Omicron it seems to be in the ballpark of 1 in 7300 and of course you know I'm not going to detail on this but if you look the yellow card scheme reports are unprecedented we've got about half a million reports beyond mild in the yellow card scheme just purely from the from the from the Pfizer vaccine AstraZeneca when I went to look at this I was shocked I didn't know about this the AstraZeneca vaccine which was pulled in effect or wasn't publicized a million reports on the yellow card scheme one million I met Jeremy Hunt recently at a King's Fund meeting and I was at an acute an ails invited there we had a nice chat and I said to Jeremy I said Jeremy I've got some information coming here I said I've looked at this in detail I said it needs to be suspended and he said which vaccine I thought it was interesting I think he was hoping or maybe you thought I'd say AstraZeneca because effectively it's been pulled I said no Jeremy it's surprise the vaccine so they'll get email me they've had some exchanges with him and he's looking at it but unfortunately his special advisor recently replied to me because Jeremy was on holiday saying the scene have you contacted the MHRA where do you go from that and then of course the other risk of harm seems to be with the best positive data from my analysis seems to be in the range of at least one in a thousand okay so we need to think about that okay what's really going on here let's just take a step back again I started with a broad view I've come into the detail on the vaccine and some of the drugs let's go back again because this is crucial to how we move forward and there are solutions to this this isn't all about doom and gloom let's see this as an opportunity to transform the system so at the root of the problem are the commercial determinants of health how do we define that strategies and approaches adopted by the private sector to promote products and choices that are detrimental to health so you see these big corporations okay don't you can include big food into this and big farmer okay so what happens is they have certain practices business practices they have a huge impact to call this industrial epidemic which affects obviously planetary health population health and increases health and social inequalities one of the ways it does that is of course is that many of these big corporations don't pay their workers properly and I know separately as a cardiologist there's a lot of information it's going to come soon around the impact of psychosocial stress the impact in terms of causing hard attacks is similar to being a regular smoker or having high blood pressure and if you were a worker in a low control low pay high demand job it's effectively a death sentence and of course companies want to pay their workers as low amounts possible at least amount possible to generate the maximum profit okay this is a really important slide and this is very interesting so this is a framework of how the big corporations exert their power there are three dimensions to these to how they exert their power the one-dimensional view is power over decision making and control over the political agenda the two-dimensional view power to define issues and potential issues and the third one which I think is very relevant to our discussion as well power to overt conflict and keep conflict latent this sort of discussion is not getting to the mainstream news partly because of the invisible unchecked power the big corporations in my view to keep conflict latent conflict between the interests of the powerful and those who the power is exerted because the truth is so powerful that if it gets out of course it's going to cause conflict and it's going to threaten industry interests there's another way of paraphrasing this I'm paraphrasing a numchonsky here doctors patients and members of the public don't know what's happening what's really happening and they don't even know that they don't know so shaping the political environment lobbying I've spoken to politicians who are well-meaning and you know some of them said to me I've seen I got this information that I believe to be true because of lobbying from drug industry but no one's giving them the counterview so they have this erroneous information often and making political decisions on information because of lobbying because only getting half the story which is bias and corrupted by commercial interests what else prefered shaping okay corporate foundations and philanthropy Bill Gates how many of you here know that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is heavily invested in pharmaceutical industry stocks McDonald's and Coca-Cola Bill Gates is not interested in tackling chronic disease through dietary changes or lifestyle and he certainly isn't interested in highlighting the excesses and manipulations of the pharmaceutical industry I wonder why that is capture of the media a lot of people's public opinion is we know is shaped by the mainstream media knowledge environment science and specification funding medical education most of the research that doctors are making clinical decisions on is funded by the industry legal environment limited liability that you know legal the shareholders and the people within those companies are protected legally even if the corporation or the institution ends up causing harm they are protected unregulated activity extra legal environment opposition fragmentation if you've got whistleblowers if you've got people who are trying to get information that's important out to the public smear them be platformed them it's all part of a strategy and what does that ultimately what ultimately happens it causes huge problems with population health macro social determinants of health most of what drives diseases lifestyle diets in activity sleep and stress these big corporations are manipulating all of that and not allowing us to lead the best lies we can lead and of course that has effects risk factors in population health next slide please so you know BMJ about 10 years ago and I think this is something we should all start thinking about now corporate power tackling corporate power should be a public health priority you know we have to take the lead all of us in a movement away from the world driven by events to the corporate bottom line and the enrichment of an elite to one that prioritises physical mental social and planetary well-being okay this hold on to this slide for a second so let's just give an example I'm going to give you one example the fraud that was uncovered big company in relation to viox a drug that was marketed in the late 90s early 2000 I remember it was a big news at the time this was thought to be better than ibuprofen as a painkiller because it didn't cause gastric bleeds and ultimately it was uncovered even though it was prescribed to tens of millions of people hundreds of millions of people that the drug increased cardiovascular risk and ultimately was responsible certainly for tens of thousands of cardiovascular deaths in fact in America John Abramson down the right who's a medical researcher in Harvard I know him I published with him talking to Joe Rogan here and explains that viox candle estimated to have killed 40 to 60,000 American citizens which was more than that was killed in Vietnam but this is the crucial bit I mean this is shopping enough he talks about an email exchange that was found during the litigation process internal emails when the drug was being approved by Merck's chief scientist and you know he basically said that an email was circulated so they knew when it was being circulated it's ashamed that the cardiovascular effect is there but the drug will do well and we will do well next slide what do you call this now I'm not saying this to be inflammatory the world-leading expert on psychopathy Dr Robert Hare forensic psychologist talks about not individuals I'm not talking about individuals in the corpital at the legal entity that is a corporation it functions like a psychopath you know I've called this new we should maybe start talking about the psychopathic determinants of health think about you know these are these are institutions that basically there to make money through deception records disregard for the safety of others deceitfulness repeated lying conning others for profit in a capacity to experience guilt that is the institution that is a corporation that's how they function now think about this conceptually for a second if you have this mind this type of institution what's it going to do to the culture who has increasing unchecked power over the last two to three decades over our lives over our work over our decision-making it's moving away from what it really means to be human doesn't it isn't it and that's not going to have a good effect on us on a population level and this is really the root of the problem in my view the legal entity that is a corporation and what about that toxic culture can tell you some of my own very clear experiences when my dad suffered a sudden cardiac arrest and there was an ambulance delay and I uncovered it and wrote an article in the I newspaper about it a cardiologist who's one of the good guys he told me don't expose this to seem making more enemies I said what about our duty to patients if I had known department of health and you know NHS England I from a reliable source essentially covered this up for several weeks when they could have told people that if you have a you know test pain or whatever else probably get a and able to take hospital because the ambulance may not get there in time you know it would have changed his outcome but that cardiologist in the NHS telling me that what is that that's a toxic culture isn't it next slide so we talked about Merck guess who Merck partnered with Facebook to control misinformation on social media Facebook and Merck have committed 40 million dollars to a multi-year initiative establishing the Alliance for Advancing Health Online next slide please now I have suffered personally many people have suffered personally because of these system failures over the years because of our inability to tackle the root cause of the problem which really are corporate interests that Trump patient interests my mum because the NHS was already before the pandemic was already under some of the strain you know she suffered an infection in a spine and when she was in hospital she had a a small heart attack because of stress on her body my dad and his best friend sat by the bedside and waited for two hours while she was effectively drowning for waiting for treatment because it was too busy and hot was too busy during