Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Big Pharma Has Had a Net Negative Impact on Society in Recent Decades

“First and foremost, medical regulators shouldn’t be taking money from industry. Drug companies … over the last few decades, overall, have had a negative impact on society, because of the way that they exaggerate the safety and benefits of their pharmacological products,” argues cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra.

We discuss issues in the drug regulatory process, why many new drugs are simply duplicates of old ones or more harmful than beneficial, and growing evidence surrounding the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the harms they cause.

“In my whole career, analyzing and looking at all sorts of different drugs over 20 years, I’ve never seen something with such poor effectiveness [and] such significant, unprecedented harms that we have rolled out to the population. It is extraordinary. And to add more insult to injury, this is now one of the most lucrative products in the history of medicine,” Dr. Malhotra says.

We discuss extensive COVID-19 vaccine data released by the UK government comparing outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, and Malhotra’s concerns of accelerated coronary artery disease among vaccinated persons.

What has been the cost of speaking out for Malhotra? And what is his strategy for getting these products withdrawn?

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Aseem Malhotra:
I’m delighted to see you again, Jan.

Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Malhotra, the last time we spoke, you were telling me that you believed that these genetic vaccines need to be removed from the market for everyone. I want to see how things have evolved since our last chat, and what is your thinking.

Dr. Malhotra:
Since we last spoke, there has been more definitive and more precise data that has emerged, certainly in terms of the benefits of the Pfizer vaccine in particular, which is what continues to be used in the UK. The UK government actually released data. This is probably the first government in the world to release such extensive data looking at per million people vaccinated, versus per million people unvaccinated, in terms of the benefits against severe COVID. The numbers are really quite startling.

If you are 70-years-old, you have to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one person being hospitalized with severe COVID. If you’re 60-years-old, it’s about 5,700 people. When you get under 50-years-old, you’re talking about tens to hundreds of thousands of people needing to be vaccinated to prevent one severe hospitalization.

Now, this is non-randomized data. What that means is it’s likely an overestimate of the benefits, because we know there’s something called healthy-user bias. In other words, people who are more likely to be vaccinated tend to be healthier than the people who were unvaccinated. We know that on average, that tends to be the case.

Jan, the effectiveness of this vaccine—and it’s been reinforced with this data—is extremely poor versus a known absolute rate of harm of at least 1 to 800 on the re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s own trials.

Mr. Jekielek:
Based on that calculation, you just described a total no-brainer.

Dr. Malhotra:
It’s a complete joke, actually. In my whole career, analyzing and looking at all sorts of different drugs over 20 years, I’ve never seen something with such poor effectiveness, and such significant, unprecedented harms that we have rolled out to the population. It is extraordinary.

To add more insult to injury, this is now one of the most lucrative products in the history of medicine. It has made Pfizer $100 billion. But actually, it isn’t that surprising. John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford, somebody I describe as a Stephen Hawking-like figure in medicine, in a previous publication said, “The greater the financial interests in a given field, the less likely the research findings ought to be true.”

Mr. Jekielek:
Have you had any further thoughts on why all this is continuing? These vaccines are still available. In some countries they’re still being recommended, even for people who are at near zero-risk, like children.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes, there’s a number of factors involved in that, Jan. First and foremost, there’s still the psychological barrier that needs to be overcome. It is one of willful blindness by the medical establishment and governments, who are essentially turning a blind eye to the truth about the vaccines, because they want to avoid conflict and protect prestige and reduce anxiety. Also, we can’t underestimate the power of these multinational corporations, big pharma in this instance, who have so much control over governments, over medical bodies, over regulators, that no one wants to take them on. That’s a big problem.

Mr. Jekielek:
It is an issue of regulatory capture. Is that how you see it?

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes, ultimately. To understand this, you have to look at the history of how we got to this point. What has happened really has been accelerated by well-intentioned, neoliberal economic policies put forward in the ’80s by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. We’ve had increasing unchecked visible and invisible power of these big corporations whose only interest and legal obligation is to produce profit for their shareholders and not give you the best treatment. That’s what we’re seeing now, the end results of that.

But unfortunately, these entities are immoral in the way that they conduct their business. I have often described it as being psychopathic. Everything emanates from that kind of cultural behavior downstream. It’s the smearing of people who are calling them out, and the silencing of whistleblowers. It’s the people who have a duty and responsibility to speak up being afraid to speak out. It’s all a downstream effect of these psychopathic drivers of ill health.

Mr. Jekielek:
Let’s switch gears and go to your field of expertise, cardiology. I want to understand, as of today, what does the data tell us about the impacts on the heart?

Dr. Malhotra:
In the last few months, there’s been a lot of discussion about the fact that we’ve got excess deaths happening in many countries around the world. A significant proportion, if not the biggest proportion of those excess deaths are cardiovascular.

Professor Norman Fenton, who’s a Professor Emeritus of Risk Information Management from Queen Mary University in London, very well respected and very well published, did a very recent analysis. His own analysis suggests that half of all the excess deaths since 2021 in the UK are because of the COVID vaccines, which is really quite shocking. That’s mainly going to be cardiovascular driven; cardiac arrests, heart attacks, and arrhythmias.

That again just reinforces the dangers of these vaccines. It’s not being acknowledged, and it’s not being addressed by the establishment and by medical bodies. They’re ignoring it. They’re denying that it has any link to the vaccines, when it’s quite clear that it’s a big contributing factor.

Mr. Jekielek:
What’s the best you can tell us about the mechanism of action? Why is this happening?

Dr. Malhotra:
The spike protein from the vaccine that gets distributed throughout the body and goes to pretty much every major organ system, including the heart, and causes either a direct toxic effect to the tissues of the heart or an autoimmune reaction. That’s probably the best way of understanding what’s happening.

The most worrying aspect from my perspective as a cardiologist is that it causes an acceleration of coronary artery disease. What that means is there will be late effects. For example, my father had a cardiac arrest six months after having the second dose of the vaccine. From my perspective now looking back, that was most likely the cause of his cardiac arrest, because it accelerated something that was relatively mild, and became quite severe within the space of a few months. Then, it drove him to have a cardiac arrest.

Mr. Jekielek:
We’re here at the FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance] Conference, which is talking about treatment of long Covid and vaccine-induced long Covid. Those are the terms I’ve heard. In dealing with these issues, what do we know?

Dr. Malhotra:
There’s still quite a lot of unknowns at the moment in how we best manage these people with vaccine-induced long COVID. I’ve been managing some of them myself in the UK. The first approach is to optimize our lifestyle, because we know that there’s definitely an association with people who are vulnerable to vaccine injuries, in the same way that people who are vulnerable to Covid.

Excess body fat, for example. Get them on a healthy diet, cut out the ultra-processed foods, and cut out the low quality carbs and the sugars. Are they doing moderate amounts of exercise on a daily basis? What are their stress and sleep levels like?

Once you do that and focus on all of those factors, many of these symptoms actually improve considerably. But of course, with FLCCC, many of the doctors here are using protocols which involve vitamin infusions, and in some cases, the use of ivermectin. I’m curious to learn about those at the conference as well and see what else is being used.

Mr. Jekielek:
I see. This is part of your exploration looking for possible treatment methods for your patients.

Dr. Malhotra:
Absolutely. We all learn from each other, so I’m always curious to see what other people are doing.

Mr. Jekielek:
What is the situation in the UK right now relative to the U.S.? Recently, some headlines were made when Andrew Bridgen was expelled from the UK Conservative Party. You have a closer knowledge of these events. I understand you’ve actually worked with him as well.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes, as a public health advocate and activist, one of the things I tried to do was to engage politicians. I’ve done that historically. I was a key figure in bringing about a soda tax in the UK because of that. I spoke towards the end of last year in Parliament, and Andrew Bridgen was there. He contacted me, having heard my talk and my lecture. It got him thinking and he was much more awake to what was going on.

He asked me to help him write a speech for Parliament, which I did, and he gave the speech. There weren’t many people there. I went to personally witness it. He invited me, which was a really good experience. But ultimately, it got six million views through social media, and people were interested in it.

After that, he obviously made his stand on calling for a suspension of the vaccine. He made a tweet where he said it was the worst crime against humanity, or a cardiologist said to him that it was the worst crime against humanity since the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, it was weaponized against him, and the former secretary for health called him an anti-vaxxer and anti-Semitic in Parliament. He was suspended by the Tory party. Only recently, in the last couple of days, they’ve completely kicked him out of the Tory party. Now, he has to run as an independent.

But great credit to Andrew Bridgen, in the sense he stood his ground. He has said because of what he’s done, if even one child has been saved from harm, then it was well worth it.

Mr. Jekielek:
You’ve also encountered some pushback since you came out as someone against the deployment of these vaccines.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes, absolutely. I managed to speak on BBC News about the vaccines. Initially, it was a discussion about statins. But I said, “Listen, there’s an elephant in the room here that we’re missing. Excess deaths are probably being driven to a large degree by the vaccines.” Then, there was a backlash in The Guardian and The Times.

The irony is that I’ve written 19 opinion editorials over the years for the Guardian Group, including three front page commentaries. A lot of them were actually about the whole corruption of the pharmaceutical industry on medicine. But they went for me, and it was a hatchet job. The headline was something along the lines of, “BBC criticized for allowing cardiologists to hijack their program with false Covid jab claim.” There were lots of people commenting on me, and character assassination, that kind of thing.

But actually, I saw it as a great sign of progress, because once you start getting attacked like this in the mainstream, it means you’re over the target. One of my inspirations is Mahatma Gandhi. He said, “First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight you. And then, you win.” I was expecting this to happen and I was very pleased, actually, when this attack came my way, because it meant we were making progress.

Mr. Jekielek:
I remember watching that BBC interview. Just a little bit on the inside, what was their reaction to you changing the topic like that?

Dr. Malhotra:
Jan, it’s really interesting. The producer called me beforehand and talked to me about statins, because that was the main topic of discussion.

Mr. Jekielek:
And your area of expertise.

Dr. Malhotra:
It is my area of expertise. My last book was a bestseller and it was based upon that. I’ve written medical journal publications. I’ve done a lot of analysis of statins over the years.

The interesting thing was the text message immediately after from the producer was, “Thank you. That was very interesting.” I also got texts from another BBC journalist in a regional BBC program in one of the other areas of the country who said, “Dr. Malhotra, can you come on and talk about this again in an hour?” Actually, I couldn’t because I had a patient to see.

I said, “I’m really sorry, I can’t do it because I’ve got a patient.” She thanked me. Then several hours later, the original producer who had booked me in and said, “That was very interesting,” suddenly said, “You seem to have deviated away from the original topic.” Clearly, someone higher up had scolded her.

But what it tells you, Jan, is that most of these journalists probably thought that the interview was interesting and it was well articulated. But they didn’t fully understand they were going into an area that shouldn’t be discussed, which meant that they were being leaned on by higher powers.

Mr. Jekielek:
The regional BBC producer didn’t return your call again?

Dr. Malhotra:
No, I couldn’t make that interview, so she didn’t call again after that. Because by that stage, it was in The Guardian. It was the most read article on The Guardian website. It was a top story about me hijacking the BBC, apparently. I suspect everybody knew by that stage.

Mr. Jekielek:
We reached out to the BBC, but they did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
Where do you see this going right now? You’re a big picture thinker. Where do you see this going?

Dr. Malhotra:
The needle has definitely shifted. There’s a massive disconnect between what the establishment is telling us and what the public feels. We know that, because people are not turning up for boosters.

There was a recent article, which has just been retracted with no good reason, in BMC Infectious Diseases, which was a survey analysis of American citizens trying to estimate what the true rate of serious adverse events are in the population based upon asking them questions. That’s not unreasonable.

In medicine, 80 percent of your diagnosis comes from history. If you’re a good doctor and you know your stuff and you ask the patient properly and ask them questions, the patient will give you the answer 8 times out of 10 even before you examine them, in terms of what the likely diagnosis is.

That kind of approach was used in this analysis, and it was pretty extraordinary. The results suggested that up to one million Americans in 2021 may have suffered a serious adverse event, with 278,000 fatalities from the Covid vaccines, which is just extraordinary. It may well be closer to the truth than people realize.

Clearly, there is progress in terms of dissemination of the truth. But the root cause of this problem in the first place is because of undemocratic, unethical, and unscientific laws. What does that mean? We have a powerful legal entity that is big pharma, that is psychopathic quite often in the way it conducts business, that basically keeps data hidden and pushes regulators to approve their drugs. This means we need to have a change in regulation.

The solution to this problem is going to happen in the courts. One thing that I’ve been involved in recently is being one of the key witnesses in a very significant court case in South Africa, a landmark case. A grassroots organization called FASA, Freedom Alliance of South Africa, made up of doctors, academics, journalists, and teachers is launching a case against the government of South Africa and its medical regulator, saying that the approval of the Pfizer vaccine was irrational, because it was based upon Pfizer’s own data, which was kept commercially confidential, and therefore, unlawful.

If this case is successful, it will go to court where all the evidence will be heard. That would set a huge precedent worldwide, and that would ultimately mean the vaccine would be withdrawn. It would be well publicized. That’s where we’re heading.

Mr. Jekielek:
We’ve seen Pfizer’s own data from the early days, and it suggests that these products should never have gone out in the first place. There was never any testing for transmission. Given the publicly available data, some of it through FOIA [Freedom of Information Act], some of it through research, why aren’t things shifting in a quicker way?

Dr. Malhotra:
There’s a lot of people invested in this vaccine, psychologically invested in it. A lot of people believed in it, and a lot of people convinced their friends and family to take it. They believed their doctors. The doctors coerced people into having it. The biggest barrier to the truth right now, Jan, is the psychological barrier.

We need to approach this with the people that are awakened and who understand what’s happening. We have to treat those people who are not enlightened yet with compassion, and understand why they have been misled. We need to walk them through it. That’s going to take a little bit more time.

Mr. Jekielek:
How can it be done if the mechanism that we’ve discovered is that manufacturers perceived a consensus in our society? Media is a big part of it, Big Tech is another part of it, and multiple institutions, including some of these health agencies. This is what was exposed through the Twitter Files and some lost discovery in numerous U.S. lawsuits. How can you raise a broader societal awareness when those mechanisms are not opposed?

Dr. Malhotra:
We just keep talking about it, having a conversation, disseminating the truth, and ultimately, the bubble will burst. It will get to a tipping point where there will be enough groundswell of public anger at the injustice that’s happened. Those institutions, with so much sunlight shining on them, will have to react. That reaction, hopefully, will be a reaction of change, an acceptance that there’s a problem, and an acknowledgement and a desire to convince the public that this is not going to happen again. We’re going to institute changes in the system so that people aren’t harmed like this ever again.

Mr. Jekielek:
You’re optimistic.

Dr. Malhotra:
Absolutely. The truth is very powerful. We already are, actually, in many ways, in hell. What has happened to the population of the world with the horrific vaccine injuries and the deaths is just extraordinary. But we are resilient people, and people want the truth. The truth will prevail. That’s very, very powerful. There is nothing more powerful than that.

Mr. Jekielek:
Many of the doctors here at this event have been outspoken. They feel they are over the target if they’re being attacked. I’ve heard that from a number of people. Have you had any professional repercussions since you came out?

Dr. Malhotra:
There is stuff going on behind the scenes, certainly. There are petitions going around, calling for the General Medical Council that holds my license to investigate me. There’s trolling on social media.

Mr. Jekielek:
You’re so casual about that. That sounds terrible about the license.

Dr. Malhotra:
Listen, it’s not nice, but it was something that I expected was going to happen anyway. I also accept and understand that part of being a successful public health advocate isn’t about how hard you hit, it’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. I have to rise above it, to be perfectly honest, like many of us when this comes our way, and just keep pushing forward.

Mr. Jekielek:
Looking at statins, you essentially played a significant role at changing the discussion around this drug. Please tell me about that, and then also what you faced professionally in the process. Maybe you’ve already experienced this at some level, something comparable.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes. The backlash I’ve experienced with the vaccine issue, and I don’t undermine any of this, but in some ways, it’s a walk in the park for me compared to what happened with statins. The reason I got involved in looking at statins is because my primary interest, obviously, is cardiology. I asked, “Why are we not really curbing heart disease if statins are so great?”

Once I started looking at the data properly, I realized that the perception among cardiologists, among many doctors, and among the public about their benefits was grossly exaggerated. I was calling for informed consent, looking at the absolute benefits of statins. If you are at low risk of heart disease, which is most of the people who are prescribed statins, certainly in the U.S. and many parts of the world, there is no mortality benefit, and people aren’t told that. In other words, you’re not going to live any longer if you take the statin religiously every day for years. It gives you about one percent benefit in preventing a nonfatal heart attack or stroke.

I’m all for informed consent when it comes to statins. I was involved in that, through publications in the BMJ, but there was a backlash, because statins are one of the most lucrative drugs in the history of medicine. It’s a trillion dollar industry. Of course, if your work threatens an industry like that, then you are going to be attacked, sometimes unrelentingly and viciously. That’s what happened many, many years ago with statins. But I came through it and I survived and I helped change the discussion.

That gave me that kind of strength to be able to go into the vaccine issue and with the publication. I was even told by some of my close friends, “I wouldn’t do this if I were you. You’re going to lose your medical license.” But I thought to myself, “This is so important. The truth is way more important.” I was willing to accept that fate, or else I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night. That’s the way I am.

Mr. Jekielek:
But at the outset, you already told yourself, “This might happen.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes, absolutely. I was still going to go ahead and do it.

Mr. Jekielek:
You’re the first person who has stood up for the data and faced the backlash, to call it a walk in the park.

Dr. Malhotra:
It’s strange, but in a way, it has been, compared to what I went through with statins. Because at one stage with the statins discussion, there was a call for retraction of my paper and a paper written by John Abramson from Harvard in the 2013 October edition of the BMJ. Ultimately, the BMJ and even the editor was put under so much pressure by one of the most influential and powerful men in medicine, not just in the UK, but in the world.

He received a knighthood for the work he did on statins. He said that we had caused harm by exaggerating the side effects issue, and that people would die because of it. It was high stakes and on the front page of The Guardian. Ultimately, the BMJ sent the articles, including mine, for an independent review to see whether they would be retracted.

Now, going through that process at the time as a junior cardiologist, if it had been retracted, that essentially would have been career destroying. But the panel came back with six to zero, in our favor. There was no call for a retraction. There was a minor correction that needed to be made with caveats around the side effects issue. But yes, I went through that, and then I carried on, pushing forward.

Jan, the other thing to say as well is that truth is very empowering. Once you know the truth, you have a platform to articulate it, and there are people who are going to come out to support you, which has happened throughout my career, that gives me strength. It’s a lonely path sometimes, but it gives me strength to just keep going.

All of us suffer in our lives in different ways. I’ve had so much tragedy in terms of losing my older brother when I was young. My mother died prematurely, and there were NHS [National Health Service] failures there, and my dad died. For me, it was taking a deep dive and personally thinking about, “How do I move forward? How do I take meaning from this? How do I do something constructive?” I also gained a realization that you have to be greater than what you suffer.

Mr. Jekielek:
That’s beautiful. What is the meaning in this for you now?

Dr. Malhotra:
The meaning is that I try to see through all this chaos and this sadness and this despair and the way the world is going and say, “Why don’t we use this as an opportunity for creating something new, something different, and something positive. Einstein said, “In every crisis lies great opportunity.” I look at it from that perspective. We can actually create a healthcare system which genuinely puts the needs of patients and the public first, and optimizes their health.

When we talk about health, I’m not a big fan of the World Health Organization at the moment. But one of the things that I do like is their definition of health, which is a state of complete mental, physical, and social wellbeing, not merely the absence of disease.

Everything I do and everything we should be doing and everything we can be doing in terms of the medical profession is to focus and understand that definition, and then, ask ourselves questions. In everything we do as a doctor, are we really genuinely improving our patient outcomes?

Once people understand that in detail, you can then start questioning. If the patients aren’t getting better, the question is why. Then, there’s a realization that what has happened is doctors are making clinical decisions on biased and commercially corrupted information.

When you explain that to people, when I give lectures and talks and I walk them through it, you see that people become empowered. You can change the way they think in just a one hour lecture. For me, that’s very, very satisfying.

People need to understand that the real power is with us and with the people, not with the privileged few and these wealthy elite. They’re only able to sustain that power because we allow it.

Mr. Jekielek:
As we finish up, what are your policy prescriptions?

Dr. Malhotra:
The most important thing that people need to understand, Jan, is that there are too many people with financial conflicts of interest that are influencing health policy. The most important thing we can do is actually remove those financial conflicts of interest. That shouldn’t be in medicine at all, because it’s going to corrupt the doctor-patient relationship.

What does that mean? First and foremost, it means the medical regulators shouldn’t be taking money from industry. With the drug companies themselves, their track record over the last few decades, overall, has had a negative impact on society, because of the way that they exaggerate the safety and the benefits of their pharmacological products.

Mr. Jekielek:
You said drug companies, overall, have had a negative effect on society.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
That’s interesting.

Dr. Malhotra:
For example, between 2000 and 2008, of the 667 drugs approved by the FDA, 75 percent of them were essentially copies of old ones. They changed the molecules here and there, and then, they patented these drugs. There’s huge waste, and the taxpayer pays for it. By the time somebody’s worked it out that it’s no better than a cheaper and possibly safer drug, they’ve moved onto the next one. Only 11 percent of the drugs were truly innovative. The waste on its own tells you that the impact has been negative overall.

In France, something similar was done there. They found that almost 1,000 drugs that were approved between 2002 and 2011 were found to be more harmful than beneficial. Again, 50 percent were copies of old ones. It’s quite clear that the overall impact of the drug industry on society in the last two or three decades has been a negative one.

Mr. Jekielek:
Those are some astounding numbers.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes. One of the reasons that people aren’t so aware of it as well, Jan, which we haven’t spoken about before, is there is a sociocultural problem here in terms of how people perceive medicine. They think it’s an exact science, and that science is objective overall. If there is something new and technological progress, it must be better. But that isn’t true. Medicine is not an exact science. It never has been. It’s an applied science. It’s not like physics or chemistry.

You can look at what actually had the greatest impact on increasing our life expectancy in the last 150 years in America. We’ve had an increase of 40 years in life expectancy. When you ask educated public health graduates, they wrongly think that 32 of those 40 years have happened because of modern medicine, when the reality is about three-and-a-half to five years. Most of what’s determined our increase in life expectancy has been through public health interventions like safe drinking water, seat belts in cars, safer working environments, and smoke-free buildings.

The single most important healthcare breakthrough in the last five decades in the Western world was taxation of cigarettes. Most people don’t know this. We have to have that conversation about people’s perception of what modern medicine does. It’s not that we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water and there isn’t a role. Of course there is. But most of what determines your health has nothing to do with what your doctor does.

Mr. Jekielek:
Let me get you back to your original thought. This is fascinating and perhaps worth another episode in the future as well. You were saying get rid of the conflicts of interest and then get the drug companies to actually be a net positive.

Dr. Malhotra:
Yes. The current system isn’t encouraging true innovation, because it’s rigged. They can do these things, these manipulations of old molecules, changing molecules around in old drugs and then repackaging them as new drugs and patenting them and making lots of money. Drug companies should be allowed to develop drugs, but they shouldn’t be allowed to test them themselves and then hold onto the raw data. They need to be independently tested. Then, you know that you’re going to get more reliable data.

The other thing as well, which is a particular problem in America, the two primary purposes of the government are to protect their citizens from external aggressors and to protect their citizens from disease. They have a role to play in ensuring their population is healthy. Why are politicians of all parties allowed to take money from industry for campaigns, like from the pharmaceutical industry, for example? It’s a huge conflict of interest.

These governments and these politicians are ultimately influencing the laws that aren’t working for the people, that allow these excesses and manipulations to occur, where information is corrupted and biased. Then, look at the whole vaccine issue. It was mandated. Absolutely extraordinary. It’s something that when you reflect on it now, probably a vaccine that should not have been injected into a single human because of the safety issues being so huge, was not just coerced onto people, but mandated onto people.

This is just beyond horrific. When you actually look at it dispassionately, you realize what’s happening. That’s only been allowed to occur because of these laws that these politicians have the power to change. They cannot do that if they’re taking money from the very industries that are benefiting from these undemocratic and unjust laws.

Mr. Jekielek:
Pfizer did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
Any final thoughts as we finish up?

Dr. Malhotra:
Jan, we’re making great progress. Certainly in the last six months since we last spoke, a lot has happened. The awareness has increased massively. We’ve seen countries like Switzerland, for example, that have now said that they are not going to recommend the Covid mRNA vaccines, and that it’s a discussion between doctors and patients. The awareness is going global. We’re making great progress. When you speak the truth, you’ve got to let go of the outcome. But yes, I’m hopeful.

Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, it’s such a pleasure to have you on again.

Dr. Malhotra:
Likewise, Jan. Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Dr. Aseem Malhotra and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.