Dr Aseem Malhotra: I’m Fighting for My Medical Licence After Blowing the Whistle on Covid Vaccines

Dr Aseem Malhotra is fighting for his medical licence after blowing the whistle on the Covid vaccines as he stands accused of undermining trust in the medical profession by questioning vaccination. He has written about his ordeal in the Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt.

In early 2021, I had no significant safety concerns about the Covid vaccines. I received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine. I appeared on Good Morning Britain, encouraging uptake in high-risk communities. At that stage, based on the published trial data, I believed the benefits outweighed the risks.

Six months later, my father suddenly died, aged 73.

Dr Kailash Chand – who was a disciplined, active and honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association – suffered a cardiac arrest. His post-mortem revealed severe coronary artery disease that had progressed far more rapidly than I would have expected, given earlier heart scans and how healthy he was.

At first, I rejected any suggestion of a vaccine link outright. But by late 2021, emerging real-world data raised legitimate scientific questions. Protection against infection from Covid appeared to wane rapidly. Countries with high vaccination rates were experiencing significant case surges. At the same time, reports of heart inflammation and other heart-related problems were appearing in drug safety databases.

In October 2021, a paper published in the journal, Circulation, reported raised levels of inflammation in the blood – markers linked to heart attacks – in a group of patients after they received a Pfizer or Moderna Covid mRNA vaccine. Although the study was small and not designed to prove cause and effect, it suggested a possible explanation – that the vaccine could trigger inflammation that affects the lining of the blood vessels.

These issues intensified my scrutiny of the original trial data.

In August 2022, a peer-reviewed re-analysis of serious adverse events from the pivotal Pfizer and Moderna randomised controlled trials was published in the journal Vaccine. Using data originally submitted to the US regulator, eminent independent researchers calculated that one was two to four times more likely to suffer a serious side effect from the vaccine (at a rate of one in 800) than be hospitalised with Covid without a vaccine. A similar figure was arrived at through real-world evidence in Norway. Around 40% of those serious events involved complications related to blood clotting.

For a medical intervention administered to healthy individuals on a mass scale, that safety signal warranted serious public debate.

For comparison, the 1976 US swine flu vaccine was stopped after it was linked to a serious neurological condition in about one in 100,000 people. In 1999, an early rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn after it was found to cause a bowel complication in about one in 10,000 children. These examples show why the level of risk matters when judging vaccine safety.

I compiled my analysis into a two-part, 10,000-word paper published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022. It underwent extensive peer review and remains the most downloaded paper in the journal’s history.

The professional consequences were immediate.

Complaints were submitted to the Royal College of Physicians, and my fellowship was suspended following anonymous allegations that my public comments had brought the College into disrepute. It was a sobering moment in my career, particularly as I believed I was acting in accordance with my professional duty to raise legitimate safety concerns.

Shortly afterwards, the General Medical Council (GMC) received complaints about my conduct. In essence, the accusation is that by scrutinising the data and raising legitimate questions in public (including on social media), I have undermined trust in vaccination, and therefore, in the medical profession itself.

But the arguments made by my critics rest on a dangerous premise – that trust is maintained by silence rather than transparency.

Everything I have said has been grounded in published, peer-reviewed evidence. The re-analysis of trial data was published in Vaccine. My own paper underwent peer review. The cardiovascular safety signals were reported in established medical journals. I have not advised patients to refuse routine immunisation. I have not discouraged uptake of established childhood vaccines. I have consistently stated that my concerns relate specifically to the risk-benefit profile and policy decisions surrounding Covid mRNA vaccines.

If raising documented safety signals and calling for further investigation constitutes ‘misinformation’, then we are redefining scientific debate as misconduct.

The GMC’s guidance makes clear that doctors must take action if they believe patient safety is at risk. That is precisely what I have done. To discipline a doctor for scrutinising pharmaceutical data sets a precedent that should concern every clinician in Britain – not because they agree with me, but because next time it may be them.

The GMC is currently examining the case against Aseem and he is waiting to hear whether it will decide to take formal action against him.

Worth reading in full.