Here’s how we know COVID-19 was decades in the making

The video below features a lecture David E. Martin, Ph.D., gave in Dornach, Switzerland, in late October 2023. Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications.

This technology has allowed Martin to scan and review millions of patents, resulting in a paper trail that conclusively proves SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made bioweapon that has been in the works for 58 years.

Unambiguous admission of a premeditated plandemic

As he is now in the habit of doing, Martin opens his lecture with a quote by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance. During a March 27, 2015, forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events, Daszak noted that unless an infectious disease crisis is at an emergency threshold, it tends to be ignored.

“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs (medical countermeasures) such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine,” Daszak said, adding:

“A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”

Martin comments:

What felonies did Daszak admit to in 2015?

Martin then goes on to explain how, in that quote from 2015, Daszak admitted to several different felonies. In summary:

“To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis… ” — Daszak is not speaking of expanding or benefiting public health here. He’s also not referring to an actual health crisis that was taking place when the comment was made.
No, according to Martin, “the crisis was that there was a reduction in funding of biological weapons programs sponsored by the World Health Organization. The crisis was not a health crisis. It was a funding crisis for the people who were running out of money for their bioweapons programs. Those are two crimes.”
“A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype.” — This, according to Martin, is an admission of two additional crimes. “Hype” refers to psychological terror. In other words, funding will follow provided the psychological terror is great enough, and he admits the media will be used to push that fear porn.
The second felony is economic conspiracy, because “economics that follow hype is not informed consent,” Martin notes. “That’s not willing buyer, willing seller, informed of all the facts.” Using psychological terror to secure funding implies “an intent to defraud.”
Martin explains: “Under Crown Law we call it ‘fraudulent conveyance’ when you don’t inform the counterparty of the risks associated with a contract… Why is this important?
The reason why fraudulent conveyance is such an important principle in the law, is… [because] the fraud-perpetrating party is required under the law to not just recompense the damage.
Their legal obligation is to return the damaged party to their pre-damaged state. It’s not, ‘We’re going to give you a couple bucks for your pain and suffering. No, you are legally required to return the condition to the pre-damage state.”
So, to reiterate, financial compensation is not the legal standard when it comes to fraudulent conveyance. The party that engaged in the fraud is legally required to make the defrauded whole again. And why is that important? Because “we’re not even asking for what we should ask for,” Martin says.
Is there a dollar amount that can cure the myocarditis you suffered after the shot? Or the turbo cancer that’s killing your mother? Or the blood clots that killed your father? “If we followed the law, we would actually recommend, not a financial compensation, we would recommend a return to the pre-damaged state,” Martin says.
“We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues.” — What are “the real issues”? To get investors to respond with funding, which they will do if they can “see profit at the end of the process.” In other words, investors will open their pocketbooks if they can confirm that psychological terror makes people line up to receive an injection.

Why do we need a vaccine for an eradicated infection?

Martin goes on to note that a Pan-Coronavirus Vaccine Program was actually publicly announced during the moratorium on gain of function on coronaviruses in the United States, which was in place from 2014 until 2017.

“That gain of function moratorium was going on while we were announcing a global plan of global terrorism, a pan-coronavirus vaccine, which, by the way, the World Health Organization… declared eradicated a year earlier,” Martin says.

“How do we need a vaccine for an eradicated disease, during a gain of function moratorium, when there’s theoretically no chance that we could have a reason to need a vaccine for a thing that doesn’t exist? Well, because we were making it – professor Baric. We were hyping it – Peter Daszak… And we were going to hijack liberty with it.”

READ: Florida surgeon general asks FDA for answers after study allegedly finds DNA fragments in COVID shots

The 58-year timeline of SARS-CoV-2

As explained by Martin, the virus called “coronavirus” was first described in 1965. Two years later, the U.S. and U.K. launched an exchange program where healthy British military personnel were infected with coronavirus pathogens from the U.S. – “as part of our biological weapons program.”

In 1992, Ralph Baric at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, took a pathogen that used to infect the gut and lungs and altered it with a chimera to make it infect the heart, causing cardiomyopathy.

“Pause and think about what I just said,” Martin says. “What goes on in the head of a person who says, ‘This was a little glitch in my tummy, it was a little sniffle in my nose. Let’s see if we can make it hit hearts and… create cardiomyopathy,’ one of the most lethal heart inflammations possible.”

In November 2000, Pfizer patented its first spike protein vaccine. So, Operation Warp Speed really didn’t produce a spike protein vaccine in a few months. No, that research had been going on since late 2000. So, the COVID shots were 19 years in the making by the time they were rolled out.

The problem is that during those 19 years, none of the coronavirus vaccines worked. “Every single trial, from November of 2000 until [2019], had killed all of the animals into which the experimental injections were placed,” Martin says.

Despite that, the University of California San Francisco’s institutional review board was told, in the summer of 2020, that the clinical trials for the coronavirus vaccine were a “straight to humans protocol.” In other words, it didn’t need to go through preliminary animal research.

As noted by Martin, it would be quite inconvenient to have safety data showing it kills animals. No one would line up for a shot like that, no matter how many free cheeseburgers you throw at them.

How can we know that SARS was a weapon?

While all of that is disturbing enough, there’s more. Martin continues:

You kind of can’t make this egregious level of a crime up unless you realize that behind this, there must be another crime. Each one of these, in and of themselves, is horrific. But the sum of them becomes much, much, much more problematic.

Let’s go ahead and jump to the wonderful creation of the patent that was filed in 2002, which is actually the reason why I am done with everybody who ask the question ‘Was there a novel virus; was there novel disease?’ Let’s stipulate, with the facts, that there were neither.

There’s not a novel virus. There was a variety of biological weapons designed off the back of the patent that was filed in 2002, which was the ‘infectious replication-defective clone of coronavirus.’

Now let’s slow down and answer the question, what does that phrase mean? Infectious replication-defective. ‘Infectious’ means we want to target a cell in the body to make sure the thing that we’re injecting goes into the cell…

‘Replication-defective’ means we want the information that we inject to infect that cell, but not replicate and spread to others, which means that the bioweapon itself was engineered as a weapon to hit a target, but not proliferate.

That’s what the patented technology is, which is the reason why, when we had SARS 1.0 in 2002 and 2003… we were [told there would be] dead people everywhere. [But] as hard as we tried to make it into a pandemic… we [could] only kick 900 people off the mountain. That was the global pandemic. Why? Because the weapon worked.

If you exposed somebody to the toxic agent, they died. But they didn’t spread it to others, which is the reason why we did not have the transmission of SARS 1.0, because you can’t transmit a thing that’s designed not to replicate.

But worse still: What is the definition of a virus?… A virus is a replicating protein sequence. Guess what this isn’t? Replication-defective means we took the virus out of a virus. It was not a replicating device. It was in fact a weapon.

Now, I’ve got tons of people who go, ‘Dave, you’re crossing the line, don’t say it’s a weapon. It’s not a weapon… You offend people who kill people when you call it a weapon.’ Well, guess what, if you’re offended, I don’t care, because I didn’t call it a weapon – the guy who built it called it a weapon.

READ: Citizen-led inquiry calls for ‘immediate halt’ to COVID vaccine use in Canada

mRNA Spike protein is a biological warfare agent

Indeed, mRNA spike protein was publicly described as a bioweapon 18 years ago. In 2005, at a conference hosted by DARPA and the Mitre Corporation in the U.S., the mRNA spike protein was hailed as a “biological warfare-enabling technology.” Does that sound like it has any public health-related applications? No, as Martin insists, “biological warfare-enabling technology” means it’s a biological warfare agent.

“So, I’m not the one saying that it’s a biological weapon. I’m not the one saying it’s biological warfare,” Martin says.

The perpetrator called it that in 2005, and was rewarded with a dual entry budget, where… the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, received money from Anthony Fauci’s NIAID/NIH budget, and exactly at the same time… Fauci had a second checkbook [that] came from the Department of Defense pandemic preparedness program. And guess what that was? An equal matching noncompetition grant…

In Europe, that’s a violation of anti-competition laws. You’re not allowed to double down on a public grant without competition or transparency, saying that this agency is going to give you $10 million… and [a second] one is going to give you $10 million… because [the first] one gave you $10 million.

Not because it was fair, not because it was open, not because it was transparent, not because there was actually grant competition, but by virtue of the determination of one side, the other side facto matched the money. And that started in 2005, not in 2019.

Big Pharma owns all North Carolina universities

Over the past two years, a lot of information has come out exposing how Daszak funneled millions of research dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China for gain of function research on coronaviruses. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. According to Martin, at least $141 million went to the U.S. bioweapons program led by the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Martin continues:

I have been the most ardent advocate for shaming the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill for a very good reason… and the reason is because in 1984, the state of North Carolina, not just the university, sold itself to… GlaxoSmithKline and the Wellcome companies.

The reason why you’ve heard the term ‘Research Triangle Institute’ or ‘Research Triangle Park’ – which is University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Duke University and North Carolina State University – is because the state of North Carolina sold its universities to GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome, and they did it because of AZT.

AZT was on patent, and we needed a state in the United States to be ground zero, to make sure that AZT became the drug of choice for the treatment of HIV. So in 1984, we invent HIV, conveniently for the purpose of making sure we have one treatment: AZT.

Here’s the interesting little fact that very few people know. If you go back and look at the videos of Anthony Fauci in 1985 and 1986… he’s talking about [getting] a vaccine for HIV. But he suddenly got a knock on the door from GlaxoSmithKline going, ‘Hey Mr. Fauci, don’t start that project until the patent on AZT runs out.’

I’m not making this up. It’s actually videos that you can see. And so, mysteriously, courtesy of the Wellcome AZT protest, from 1991 to 1996, the world was told that the only treatment for HIV was AZT, and as such, the patent and the rest of the patent life on AZT could expire, so that GlaxoSmithKline Wellcome could get all of the money for the patented technology for a thing that was killing patients that allegedly had HIV.

Murder for hire. North Carolina sold the state so that could happen. Conveniently, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) decided that UNC Chapel Hill was its go-to institution, while AZT was in its monopoly run, to begin the process of doing HIV vaccine research…

So, ‘91 to ‘96 is the AZT cover story. Underneath that you have Ralph Baric genetically modifying and making chimeras of this coronavirus thing to create an HIV vaccine, which is going to conveniently roll out in 1997, as the patent on AZT expires.

[This] is the reason why you need to figure out how to get the gastrointestinal and flu problem to become a heart problem: Because you need to get that package, that little envelope around what we call coronavirus… to deliver the HIV vaccine.

So all of the funding for the HIV vaccine that was going to this program was actually going to use coronavirus as the packet in which the HIV vaccine was going to be delivered. That’s the model. [There are] hundreds of papers on this.

And, this is why this question of… is there HIV fragments somewhere in [the COVID shots]? The answer is, of course there is. It was designed into it. And it was designed into it, not a couple of years ago, not by Moderna, not by BioNtech. This was designed in many, many years earlier.

Not surprisingly, from ‘96 to ’99, Ralph Baric begins the weaponization of this allegedly synthetic coronavirus envelope to become a vaccine vector. 1999 comes along, and lo and behold, Baric and Fauci create what I affectionately call FrankenCoV.

What’s that? That is the monster, that’s the chimera. That’s the idea that we can change surface glycans, we can change surface spike proteins, we can change surface oligomerization, we can do all kinds of things to modify this thing.

So we can actually have this… package shell, the outer edge of coronavirus, we can allow that to be the carrier of getting anything we want into any cell we want. Which is the reason why the 2002 patent becomes interesting.

NIAID funded research to increase human pathogenicity

Next, Martin shows a letter, dated October 21, 2014, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, declaring that Baric’s grant I1077810-02 had been deemed subject to the moratorium on gain of function research involving coronaviruses. However, at the bottom of the page 1, it also states that:

As this grant is already funded, the pause is voluntary and you can continue to conduct the applicable GOF [gain of function] research until the end of the currently active budget period.

READ: New Zealand whistleblower who leaked data linking COVID jabs to excess deaths faces 7 years in prison

In other words, the NIAID gave Baric a free pass to decide whether he wanted to abide by the moratorium or not. What’s more, the grant actually didn’t have a termination date, because it was a noncompetitive, perpetually funded grant. So, Baric was given a free pass to conduct gain of function research indefinitely.

And what was this grant for? To increase the “human pathogenesis” of coronavirus in vivo, meaning inside the body. “Two billion people are going to be incapacitated or killed – because of this letter,” Martin says.

Who can be held accountable?

Alright. So, why can’t we just prosecute Baric, Fauci, and whomever else and be done with it? Because this research project was placed under the World Health Organization’s GAVI Vaccine Alliance, and under Article 5, Section 13 of the WHO’s charter, they cannot be investigated or prosecuted for any crimes committed. GAVI, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, also has diplomatic immunity and cannot be investigated by local authorities there either.

“They knew that if they put the project under the WHO, it was shielded from all criminal investigation and all criminal liability – forever,” Martin says.

But that’s not all. 2010 to 2020 was declared The Decade of Vaccines. GAVI devised a global vaccine action plan that included global acceptance of a “universal influenza-coronavirus vaccine” by 2020, to protect against “accidental or intentional release” of a respiratory pathogen. As noted by Martin, “release” is “an active, intent-filled word. It is not an ‘oops’ accident.”

Recall, the same person who said they needed to create media hype to create sustained funding, Daszak, was appointed to lead the WHO’s investigation into the lab leak theory. Not surprisingly, his team decided there was no evidence to support the lab leak theory and it was probably a case of zoonotic transference after all.

A crime that keeps going and going

Martin also stresses that this crime is not just about the creation of COVID. It’s a crime that keeps going and going. He explains how children were murdered in 2011 clinical trials for a malaria vaccine. Sixty-six of the children in the vaccine group suffered serious and/or fatal adverse events, as did 28 in the control group. However, controls were not given saline, but rather a cocktail of other vaccines.

When people attempted to hold the clinical trials agents accountable for their actions, guess what they referred to? They referred to Article [5 Section] 13 of their representative as members [of the WHO, which gives them] ‘immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure personal baggage and respect to words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their official capacity, immunity from legal process of every kind.’

That’s in the charter of what we call the World Health Organization. That ladies and gentlemen is the mafia, and we should stop pretending it’s something else.

It is an embarrassment to the Swiss people. It is embarrassment to the Swiss government that the World Health Organization exists in this place. Because the Swiss have enabled the organized crime of the World Health Organization, and they have enabled it so that real individuals can murder children under the age of three months…

We the People cannot allow this to happen. We’re talking about the [WHO pandemic] treaty… [when] we should be talking about the World Health Organization itself, not the treaty. And as long as Section 13 of Article 5 remains in the charter, I don’t care what treaties they pass, it doesn’t matter, because the institution is corrupt at its core, and you can’t fix that. That is a license to kill.

Martin also provides a quick review of the history of how the WHO came to be, and how, in 1952, then-director-general of the WHO, Brock Chisholm, declared that “the role of the WHO is population control.”

Aside from being in charge of population control, the WHO is a marketing and distribution arm for private sector interests that sponsor it (Bill Gates being a primary one), while simultaneously providing them with immunity from prosecution.

According to Martin, Gates various organizations provide so much money to the WHO that “By every definition of the law, [the WHO] is a wholly owned subsidiary.”

Timeline

Toward the end of his speech, Martin summarizes some of the key items on the timeline of the conspiracy to commit global genocide:

In 2002, U.S. scientists developed the weapon.
In 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention patented the weapon in its first commercial deployment (SARS).
In 2005, mRNA spike protein was declared a biological “warfare-enabling” technology.
In 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published “SARS-Like W1V1-COV Poised for Human Emergence.” The W1V1-COV refers to the first COVID-like virus made at the WIV. In that article, they not only state that the virus is ready for release, but they also detailed the best ways to release it.
At the bottom of the article, you also learn that the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill impaneled two separate institutional review board reviews of this study, the first to review the ethics of the research and a second to review the ethics of violating the gain of function moratorium, which is unusual to say the least. As noted by Martin:
You do not usually have an ethics board going ‘Well, should we do this? It’s probably a bad idea.’ And then somebody goes, ‘It’s illegal’… ‘OK, should we do the illegal thing?’ ‘Yeah, let’s go ahead do that. The guys over here said it was ethical to do the illegal thing to kill people.’ That happened and is published in this 2016 article.
September 18, 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, jointly founded by the WHO and the World Bank, warned that “a rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen (whether naturally emergent or accidentally or deliberately released) poses additional preparedness requirements.”
Furthermore, the “Progress indicator by September 2020” section specified the commitment by donors and member countries to finance and develop a universal influenza vaccine and other therapeutics.⁹

READ: Pentagon data shows heart failure spiked nearly 1,000% among pilots in 2022: whistleblower

“This is the admission by the World Health Organization that they are going to do a release of a respiratory pathogen,” Martin says, adding:

And, by the way, the reason why this is particularly important is they say ‘a lethal respiratory pathogen.’ They knew they were going to kill people. That’s why they use the word lethal…

This is the evidence that we can use in a criminal case to say, ‘This was not an accident. This was an actual premeditated act of lethality.’ They not only told you when it was going to happen. They told you the deadline for the outcome response. ‘We’re going to release the pathogen so that by September 2020, the world has accepted a universal vaccine.’ That is prima facia terrorism, collusion, racketeering, criminal conspiracy and… murder.

So that’s why we have the Wanted posters… [for] Peter Daszak… Ralph Baric… Jeremy Farrar… Chris Elias… Ghebreyesus… Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, DARPA, the United Nations… Rockefeller Foundation, the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation.

These individuals, in violation of racketeering, antitrust and anticompetition laws, colluded to create the largest act of global terrorism known to Earth and announced the plan to do it on September 18, 2019, with premeditation and with the intent to kill.

This was entirely a premeditated act. They told us it would happen in 2011. They announced the event horizon in 2019… Conspiring to commit acts of terror, restraint of trade, deceptive medical practices, price fixing, fraudulent conveyance. These are the crimes that the World Health Organization not only allowed to happen, but [it also] promoted these crimes and gave political cover for those crimes…

All-cause mortality in the ages of 18 to 55 is now 40% higher in the people that were injected with a biological weapon. That number is not going down. That number is going up in every jurisdiction. And here’s the saddest part about it. That number will continue to go up. If they [meet] their 2011 objective, that number will go up to 2 billion people.

The damage is done

Martin points out that even if they don’t unleash any other bioweapons, the desired death toll may still be achieved, because they used pseudouridine in the mRNA shots, which is causing “turbo cancers.”

Pseudouridine suppresses cancer-controlling agents and promotes oncogenic activity in the body, and this has been known since 2018, so its inclusion was hardly an accident.

The shots are also targeting reproduction, which is a key target if you want to depopulate. It’s not just infertility. Prostate, ovarian and uterine cancers make it more difficult to have sex, and hence more difficult to have children.

According to Martin, the evidence is clear. None of this is accidental. It’s a conspiracy, alright. But not a conspiracy theory in the dismissive sense. It’s a global conspiracy by identifiable agents who have, for nearly 60 years, plotted to commit, and profit from, the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, while hiding behind the false veneer of “public health.”

Reprinted with permission from Mercola.

Related Topics:#AnthonyFauci #EcoHealthAlliance #JosephMercola #LifeSiteNews #PeterDaszak

Up Next

There are no Indian Residential School denialists, so why criminalize them?

Don't Miss

New Study Confirms CDC and Other ‘Experts’ Hurt Children for Nothing

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Out-Trumping Trump: A Mission Without a Win

National / 3 hours ago

Paul Wells: The Second Finance Ministers Club

Business / 10 hours ago

EXCLUSIVE: Former Biden Climate Czar Apparently Pushed Homeland Security To Ease Up On Chinese Company Linked To Slave Labor

COVID-19

Esteemed UK Doctor pleads with governments to cancel COVID-19 vaccines

Published on December 18, 2024

Todayville

By Duane Rolheiser

Despite the fact COVID is still circulating and it seems it always will be, COVID vaccines have fallen out of favour with the vast majority of the population. The intense push from the government, the medical system, and the media has waned. Still, the medical system continues to quietly recommend COVID vaccines.

For months and even years now, a pile of evidence and data is turning into a mountain. Evidence and data that reveals COVID is not as dangerous as we thought, while the COVID vaccines actually are far more dangerous than advertised.

For various reasons, (litigation probably being the biggest one) governments have resisted admitting mistakes. Until they do, the medical systems overseen by those governments have little reason to react either. As for the media, it’s becoming hard to say if fewer people are paying attention to them because of the internet revolution, or if it’s because “no one’s buying what they’re putting down”. For the media, admitting you got it ALL WRONG isn’t even the hardest thing to do. Legacy / Mainstream media continues to fail even up to this very day to do what we all thought their job was, which is to demand the truth from power. Since they refuse to do that, the public slowly drifts off just as they are from COVID vaccines, assuming that somewhere along the way the job of the media changed from challenging power, to propping it up.

Of course not everyone is playing along. A very small number of people have been right about all these thing from the very beginning. Let’s say about 5%. You may know these people as ‘the angry crazies’. Then there were maybe 15% to 25% of people who came around after six or twelve months. You refer to these siblings, co-workers, and former friends as ‘annoying know-it-alls.’ I was in that group and like a fool I took the initial 2 shots even though I was starting to become suspicious. I also admit to being annoying, but I hope you would be annoying to those you care about as well if you thought you knew something they desperately needed to know. After many, many months we gave up on the rest of you. It’s not that we didn’t care. We just concluded you don’t. That broke something in us that society has yet to deal with. Maybe never will.

I digress. This isn’t about the millions of me’s out there. This is about the strongest, bravest, and most intelligent of those who found themselves ostracized by family members, co-workers, friends, and their communities. There are a number of heroic people out there who refused to give in even when it meant they paid with their jobs and livelihoods. Some of them turned their backs on extremely lucrative and fulfilling careers. Some of them were in the medical community. Some living among us really deserve to be recognized. Maybe one day we’ll figure that out and society will be far better for it.

One of these people is British Doctor Aseem Mulhotra. Dr Mulhotra is a stranger to the average North American, but if you were from the UK and you paid attention you would probably have noted him as that young specialist doctor who all the news shows and newspapers loved to talk to. He was a bit of a medical celebrity prior to COVID. About a year after the pandemic started his public stock took a u-turn and he turned into a bit of a pariah.

Dr. Mulhotra is the subject of this writing because he has done something amazing… again. A few months back he helped write the Hope Accord petition. So far it hasn’t resulted in a hill of beans. I suspect it won’t change a thing actually. Even though it’s been signed by hundreds and starting to get into the thousands of doctors, and several thousand health care practitioners, petitions are signed by those who already support them. They’re important to gauge the public, but they really don’t do much to ‘change’ public perception.

Perhaps because Mulhotra realized the petition hasn’t convinced governments to come to terms with what they did and are still doing with the COVID vaccine, he changed tactics. Dr. Mulhotra penned a public letter and addressed it to the people in charge of the UK’s health care system. This letter is far more powerful than a petition. It’s not asking for support. In 11 pages (Ok that’s a long letter but this is important!) Aseem Mulhotra pens an unequivocal truthful medical path through the pandemic. Not many people could have pulled this off. Perhaps no one would have the correct combination of medical credentials, and brilliant communication talents. In a video I’ll talk about next, Mulhotra says he’s already been contacted by a medical colleague who told him he read the letter and it completely changed the way he’s been thinking. I strongly urge you to read the letter. If you already agree you’ll appreciate it. If you have had trouble understanding the last few years don’t think of this as an effort to change your mind. It’s more like a love letter to the truth, from a man who’s put everything on the line for his beloved.

A few days ago, Mulhotra published this public letter on his website. Don’t click yet, there’s more… also I’ve attached it below. Further, if you follow Todayville at all you’ll know Dr. John Campbell. He’s another one of those people who need to be recognized for how he presented truth and data to millions of people desperate for non-governmental-non-pharmaceutical party lines media is still carrying non-stop. That’s another story entirely. For this one all we need to know is that Dr. Cambpell is also committed to the truth. His specialty is video communication and his youtube audience is as loyal as they come. After the letter I’ve attached Dr. Campbell’s video interview with Dr. Mulhotra where they talk about all this. It takes as long to watch as the 11 page letter takes to read, so one coffee may not be enough. You may need the pot for this one.

This is the letter by Dr. Aseem Mulhotra, one of the writers of the Hope Accord which calls for a comprehensive re-evaluation of COVID vaccines. I’ve included a link below because for some reason this is very difficult to find via Google. If you use Brave though.. comes right up. Strange.

Consultant Cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra,

Thousands of doctors sign petition to suspend COVID mRNA vaccines – an open letter to the GMC

Mr Charlie Massey– CEO – The General Medical Council

Cc Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health, Sir Christopher Whitty – Chief Medical Officer, Lord Patrick Valance – Minister of State for Science Research and Innovation.

Dear Mr Massey,

I am writing to address the specific allegations that I am undermining trust in the medical profession by spreading “COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” and have been spreading/fuelling “conspiracy theories”. I‘ve been asked to respond to the General Medical Council’s Assistant Registrar specifically about what has changed since the initial complaints were first made against me by anonymous doctors in 2021. This is the spirit of this letter.

In this open letter, I make the case that there is overwhelming evidence that calls for the suspension of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (which, by technicality, is a genetic therapy) because of serious harms. In my professional opinion, the current position of the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, and the government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Lord Patrick Vallance, to not support a pause and independent investigation of the safety of the vaccines is now untenable given accumulating evidence of harm and corrupt practices. This stance has considerable support from fellow doctors (including an internationally eminent oncologist and immunologist), data scientists, patients, lawyers, politicians (including a former government minister in Boris Johson’s cabinet) and public figures. I also emphasize in this letter that the challenges we face go beyond simple disagreements about the science. Institutional issues, such as collusion with pharmaceutical companies prioritizing profit over patient welfare, and the unprofessional behaviour of some colleagues, stand in the way of patient safety and the delivery of high-quality healthcare. These deeply rooted problems must be addressed.

Throughout my career, I have consistently adhered to the highest principles of ethical, evidence-based medical practice. My expressed concerns about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine uphold these values. Yet, I have been defamed publicly for following the ethical and scientific principles that guide the profession. In this letter, I reveal how fellow medical professionals used defamation of character in attempts to censure me. The behaviour of my colleagues is unscientific, unethical, and unprofessional. Those defaming me are breaching General Medical Counsel (GMC) guidance in having respect for colleagues and, by such behaviour, are themselves bringing the medical profession into disrepute.

Because the decisions you make after receiving this letter have huge global ramifications, and because I have lost trust in the political and medical establishments’ ability to appropriately deal with what has resulted in an ongoing catastrophic public health calamity, I feel obliged to make this letter public.

Sunlight is the most powerful disinfectant for malodorous health policy.

Principles of Public Life

Dr. Aseem Malhotra

I start this letter by reminding those in receipt of their duty to uphold the seven Nolan principles of public life: selflessness, objectivity, integrity, accountability, honesty, openness, and leadership.(1) It is emphasised that leadership also means holding others accountable who are not adhering to those principles. I have held several leadership roles throughout my career. I was appointed to be the youngest Trustee of the King’s Fund that advises government on health policy in 2015, where I completed a full term of six years. Prior to and overlapping that time I served as a public-facing ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges for six years in three official roles: 1) a member of the obesity steering group, 2) Consultant Clinical Associate; and 3) a member of the Choosing Wisely Steering group, where I coordinated a widely publicised campaign with the BMJ and the Academy to wind back the harms of too much medicine. (2) This was a campaign that started very successfully but appeared to end abruptly pre-pandemic. My entire career has upheld the principles of the profession and my current stance on the COVID-19 vaccine is not different.

Barriers to Unbiased Scientific Advancement

The primary accusations made against me are that I was acting in ways that spread “misinformation” about the COVID-19 vaccine, suggesting that the mainstream views of vaccine were “objective truth”.

My stance on the COVID-19 vaccine has remained clear: The COVID-19 vaccines have not demonstrated adequate safety in unbiased studies and have clear evidence of harm for some individuals. I am committed to patient safety and quality healthcare. Since these drugs are not adequately tested, they should be suspended from the market. This stance has caused significant turmoil among some colleagues, who refuse to engage in meaningful scientific dialogue and remain steadfast and dogmatic in their views despite the growing evidence to the contrary.

Acting in good faith, I want to emphasise that I do not believe that those in medical leadership positions are ill-intentioned (although on the surface may rightly appear to be falling well short of adhering to the Seven Nolan Principles). The barriers to a more complete picture of the truth in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines are primarily psychological, not intellectual. These psychological processes are part of a broken system, which will be described below, and exacerbated by a culture of too much hubris and less humility within the profession. This is a topic well discussed by my mentor and referee, the former chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and GMC, Professor Sir Terence Stephenson, and will not be discussed much further here. (Please feel free to contact him regarding these comments in addition to being a character reference for myself). Specifically, two major barriers to engaging in meaningful scientific dialogue and advancement is a result of the psychological processes of fear and wilful blindness.

The first psychological barrier to the truth is that of fear. Under a state of fear human beings, including doctors, are less able to engage in critical thinking. Critical thinking is a foundational component of science, which should underscore all our decision-making as evidence-based practitioners. Fear propagation was a major tactic used by authorities to make the population more compliant with the vaccine. In early 2023, the Telegraph Newspaper revealed secret WhatsApp messages showing that the Secretary of State for Health’s, Matt Hancock, plan to exaggerate the risk of COVID-19 to “frighten the pants off the public”. This fear campaigns were successful in altering perceptions of the general public and professional communities. A 2021 survey in the United States showed that 30-50% of the public believed their risk of the unvaccinated being hospitalised from COVID was 50%, (3) when the actual figure was closer to 1%. Consistent with a Theory of Planned Behaviour, the strategy they used resulted in a gross over-estimation of risk, which created fear that motivated increased vaccination rates. As previously pointed out by the director of health literacy at the Max Planck institute Gerd Gigerenzer, “without understanding the numbers involved, the public are vulnerable to exploitation of their hopes and fears by political and commercial interests”. (4) It is my belief that the anonymous doctors filing claims against me share in the perceptions of fear – fear of both the (unsubstantiated) risks of COVID and the truth being revealed, by people like me.

The second psychological barrier is wilful blindness. (5) Wilful blindness is when human beings or institutions turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety or to protect prestige and fragile egos. Well-known examples of institutional wilful blindness include the BBC and Jimmy Saville, Hollywood and Harvey Weinstein, and the Catholic Church and child molestation. It is my strong opinion that the political system, the medical establishment, and the legacy media continue to be wilfully blind to what is, in my view, the most horrific medical product to be injected into hundreds of millions of people globally.

I personally understand the power of wilful blindness – and how our medical establishment creates the type of indoctrination that allows this to occur. Despite being recognised as the most outspoken doctor in the world for over a decade, pointing out the excesses and manipulations of industry to the detriment of public health and democracy, I had a blind spot to the potential risks of vaccines. This is despite a history of calling for public inquiries into the murky practices of the pharmaceutical companies on numerous occasions in the mainstream press prior to the pandemic. This included speaking on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, and articles in Mail Online, The Guardian, and the I Newspaper, which featured a front-page story of me speaking in the European Parliament in 2018. (6) The most prominent medical supporter of this issue, who accompanied me to Brussels, is Sir Richard Thompson, Past President of The Royal College of Physicians and former personal physician to her majesty Queen Elizabeth the second. The title of my talk, which made front page of the I newspaper in the EU parliament, was “Big Food and Big Pharma, Killing for Profit?” I understood the harms of the pharmaceutical industry for patient health. I was aware – and yet, I admittedly and understandably had a blind spot when it came to vaccines. On Good Morning Britain, I publicly supported the use of the COVID-19 vaccine for high risk and older people from ethnic minorities. I personally took two doses myself under the false belief it would protect my patients. I am quoted stating, “traditional vaccines are amongst the safest of all pharmacological products”. That does reflect the published evidence with a serious adverse event rate of 1-2 per million doses. The co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration Peter Goetzche’s analysis of prescribed drugs being the third leading cause of death globally (after heart disease and cancer) does not feature any vaccine. Up until the pandemic, I’d never come across or even heard of a patient that was “vaccine injured”.

When I began to read the science on the COVID-19 vaccine, combined with personal and clinical experience my eyes opened and blindness disappeared.

For this reason, I understand why many doctors still remain wilfully blind to the possibility of the COVID vaccines causing any significant harm. They are still stuck in the same indoctrinated mindset I was in until the latter part of 2021.

The problem is institutional – and must be fixed.

Truth Amidst Lies

I have been asked to respond with any new evidence and/or support of my stance to pause and investigate the COVID-19 mRNA genetic therapies. I initially starting to publicly raise serious questions on the safety of the COVID-19 mRNA products in November 2021; but I have long been a vigilant and outspoken advocate for healthcare improvement, consistently highlighting the need to address the harms within the medical system. Understanding the significant and harmful shortcomings of the medical system – including the aforementioned psychological barriers to the truth – is crucial to begin to fully comprehend that extraordinary public health calamity we find ourselves in.

I understand the complaints to the GMC began shortly after an interview on GB News, where I raised concerns of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines increasing cardiovascular risk and called for an end of mandating the vaccine for NHS staff. In a similar timeframe, I also went public on BBC News and Sky News. The original stimulus behind these interviews was me being a whistle blower through the I newspaper where I highlighted a cover up between the department of health and NHS England on ambulance delays that contributed to my father’s death. (7) I utilised those opportunities to highlight the inconsistency between what we know about the safety and effectiveness of the covid vaccine and public health policy. Specifically, I found it strange that Sajid Javed announced a mandate after it became widely known the vaccine wasn’t stopping infection or transmission, and in the context of reports of serious harm and death. It appeared to me to be medically negligent to mandate this product. Rationally and Intuitively, it occurred to me that the only beneficiaries of the mandates would be Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry. These suspicions were proven correct last year, when US investigative journalist, Lee Fang, uncovered that in the summer of 2021 Pfizer paid tens of thousands of dollars to respected civil rights and grass roots organisations in America to push the mandate narrative. (8)

The concerns about mandates were not unique to me. I was been contacted by many unvaccinated NHS colleagues, publicly and privately, asking me to help stop the mandates. They feared job loss. I told them to stand firm and not capitulate before the April 2022 deadline. In December 2021, I had a two-hour phone conversation with the then-chair of the British Medical Association, Dr Chaand Nagpaul, and explained the evidence available to the medical community at the time. We discussed how to influence Sajid Javed to U-turn on this announcement. At the end of the conversation, he said explicitly:

“Aseem, none of my colleagues appear to have critically appraised the evidence as well as you have, most of them are getting their information on the COVID-19 vaccine from the BBC”.

Such a statement was replicated by the Chair of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, after it became clear the vaccine wasn’t stopping infection. She admitted her initial “optimism” for the COVID-19 shots came from a CNN news report. The CNN News report she was referring to was almost verbatim reproduction of Pfizer’s press release, which headlined in November 2020 with “Pfizer and BioNTech say final analysis shows coronavirus vaccine is 95% effective with no safety concerns”. Unfortunately (and I say this reluctantly having done many interviews and unpaid work for them), the BBC, like CNN, has been one of the most egregious purveyors of misinformation during the pandemic. They shared a similar headline, “The first effective coronavirus vaccine can prevent more than 90% of people from getting COVID-19”. As far as I’m aware, there has never been a correction, apology, or explanation from medical leadership or mainstream media of why they promoted a narrative that turned out to be completely false.

If the medical profession continues to place its trust in the legacy media—an entity widely known for distorting the truth—where the majority of health stories fail on most criteria for accuracy – how can we possibly restore trust in the profession itself?

In fact, lack of the acknowledgement of being wrong about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, along with the health policies involving coercion and mandates, is in my view a major root cause why there has been a huge decrease in trust in the medical profession. A recent publication from the United States revealed that trust in doctors is at an all time low at 40% having dropped from 72% in April 2020. (9)

A culture within certain sections of medical leadership that fails to adhere to the Seven Nolan Principles is partly to blame. Prior to exposing the ambulance delay that played a role in my father’s death in the I newspaper (which also made BBC News headlines), I sent a message to a cardiology training programme director explaining the situation. His reply was “I wouldn’t do that if I were you, you will only make yourself enemies”. I was appalled that the prevailing culture within our medical profession discouraged honesty out of fear of interpersonal repercussions. What happened to the principles of integrity and leadership? Similarly, one Royal College president called me when I publicly raised patient safety issues on the COVID-19 vaccine and said “ You’re never going to get a gong”; in other words, what appeared more important to this person than protecting patients was getting honours from the Royal family, presumably by turning a blind eye to such atrocities.

This experience of culture is not merely anecdotal to me; it speaks to dysfunctional behaviour within the medical establishment. The former Editor of the BMJ, Richard Smith, wrote in 2016 about the evidence of pervasive covering up of research misconduct within British institutions. He concludes, “something is rotten in the state of British medicine and has been for a long time”. (10 ) Similarly, in 2015, Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet, commented on commercial distortions of the scientific evidence. He wrote, “possibly half of the published medical literature may simply be untrue” and that “science has taken a turn towards darkness”. He asked, “who is going to take the first step to clean up the system?”.(11)

Despite the accusations and attacks against me, I maintain a deep commitment to quality healthcare in the UK. I remain committed to the patients many of whom have already written supportive letters to the GMC. These include patients I’ve managed with long covid and with vaccine injury. This is why the current Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, is copied on this letter. He must be made aware that the NHS cannot, and will not, make any significant improvements to quality of care until we correct the root cause of the problem: commercial distortions of the scientific evidence.

Two Major Misdiagnosis of the Medical Profession.

In relation to these accusations, there are two major systemic problems that need to be corrected in order to fulfil the obligation of the medical profession to serve patients: 1) Quality of clinical data; 2) Transparent information about potential risks to physicians (lack of informed consent at the level of institution/physician).

The first misdiagnosis – quality of evidence – is both historical and current. With rare exception, results of industry-sponsored clinical trials are not independently verified, leading to an exaggeration of and bias toward the safety and effectiveness of all pharmaceutical products. When the industry sponsors science, an undeniable confluence emerges between scientific results and profit. Most doctors are not aware of this confounding, and thus patients and policy makers aren’t aware either. This would not be such a major issue if the pharmaceutical industry was benign and well-meaning, but because of the weak regulations on industry and science, they cannot be. Pharmaceutical companies have a fiduciary obligation to produce profit for their shareholders. They are not responsible for high-quality treatment or obligated to serve patients in any way. This is where the problem lies: profits over people. As pointed out by cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst in a talk at the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine, “the real scandal is that those with a responsibility to patients and scientific integrity, namely academic institutions, medical journals and doctors, collude with industry for financial gain”.

The diagnosis made by the pre-eminent forensic psychologist Dr Robert Hare and law professor Joel Bakan over 20 years ago is that Big Corporations (such as Big Pharma) are psychopathic in their pursuit of profit. Institutionally, they show the same characteristic behaviours as individuals with psychopathic tendencies: callous unconcern for the safety of others, incapacity to experience guilt, repeated lying and conning others for profit. This diagnosis as far as I’m aware has not been rebutted or challenged. The evidence is clear that the majority of the largest pharmaceutical companies have racked up billions in fines over the past three decades for illegal marketing of drugs, manipulation of trial results, and hiding data on harms.

Since we cannot rely on the pharmaceutical corporations – which have profit as the top priority – to produce unbiased data, the onus is on the evidence-based practitioner to openly discuss the quality of evidence. This is precisely what I have done – because I believe in placing people over profits.

The second misdiagnosis, which has particular relevance to the COVID-19 vaccines, is the lack of transparent information about the real risks associated with the products. Accountability in a medical system involves all key stakeholders doing their part to ensure the best possible outcomes for patients. In this case, it is the responsibility of the regulatory bodies to synthesize and translate dense evidence to support the implementation of evidence-based medicine by doctors. Yet, in the case of COVID-19, the overwhelming majority of doctors (including myself) were completely unaware and uninformed of the risks. Importantly, this was not because the information was not available. In fact, there was a WHO-endorsed list in 2020 of potential serious adverse events from the mRNA jabs that could occur because of vaccination. The list of adverse reactions involved every single organ system, including the cardiovascular system for which I am an expert. Reactions included but were not limited to: cardiac arrythmia, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, pericarditis, heart failure, chest pain, ischaemic stroke.

If the medical establishment had the capacities to distribute the presumed benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine on a wide and prevalent scale, why then was this list of potential harms not equally disseminated?

Without the physicians being aware of potential side effects, it is impossible to properly serve patients or practice evidence-based medicine at scale. Physicians cannot diagnose something that they do not know is a possibility post-vaccination. For example, one of the most extraordinary and shocking stories of misdiagnosis was the death of a fit and healthy 32-year-old psychologist who suffered a massive stroke 10 days after taking a COVID vaccine. The medical team looking after him – likely unaware of the potential harms – put “natural causes” on the death certificate. His wife, adamant that this was caused by the vaccine, pursued the truth and ultimately won her case to get the cause of death changed to reflect the truth: Death as a result of “unintended consequences of the vaccine”. (12) As stated above, the indoctrinated belief about vaccine safety led to a blind spot on vaccine injury on behalf of the physician.

Benefits versus Harms of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: Best Available Evidence.

Serious harms from the vaccine have been confirmed from a combination of clinical, mechanistic, randomised controlled trials, observational, pharmacovigilance, and autopsy data. In these studies, the majority of deaths that occurred within two weeks of taking the vaccine died as a direct result of the mRNA product. There is undeniable evidence that there are serious risks associated with COVID-19 vaccine for at least some individuals.

The next important questions are:

For whom does the vaccine harm?
How frequent are people harmed?
How does this rate compare to potential benefit on totality of best available evidence?

As of right now, the data is clear that the vaccines cause greater harm than benefit.

From a scientific perspective, the highest level of evidence is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). This is what we rely on for best available evidence. As mentioned above, a major barrier to the practice of high-quality evidence-based medicine is the reliance on industry-sponsored trials and misinformation being spread by the media. The media propagated headlines based on industry-sponsored RCTs, and many doctors, policymakers, and patients accepted them as truth. This is the situation we find ourselves in – which drives the accusations made against me.

However, re-analysis of Pfizer and Moderna’s original RCTs by independent scientists, published in the journal Vaccine, revealed that one was more likely to suffer a serious adverse event (e.g., a life changing reaction, a disability, or hospitalisation) from taking the vaccine than one was to be hospitalised with COVID. The rate of short term serious adverse events was 1 in 800. (13)

In other words, these vaccines caused more harm than good from the beginning – and the data was there, ready to be analysed in an unbiased way! If it were not for people, like myself, speaking out about potential risks, this data may never have been re-analysed – and patients would continue to be harmed.

Of importance, the majority of the serious adverse events documented in the re-analysis are likely to reduce life expectancy. Currently, we only know about short term (within two month) harms through a trial that was designed to minimise the appearance of side effects. Medium- and longer-term harms – such as the acceleration of cardiovascular disease, cancer, auto-immune conditions, and mental health issues – are hypothesized to make the serious adverse reaction rate significantly higher. We must continue to be vigilant about safety studies and conducting high-quality, unbiased research.

Additional examples of inaccurate data include data released by the UK Health Security Agency in early 2023. They reported that for those over 70 years old, 2,500 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one hospital admission from COVID. This is likely a grossly exaggerated benefit because, on average, those who remained unvaccinated tended to have lower socioeconomic status and baseline poorer health, which was not corrected for even though covid and all-cause mortality is at least two-fold higher in this subpopulation. More recent data reveals that denominator in the highest risk age group ( those aged over 90) to be 7000 – in other words, serious harm from the vaccine is at least eight times greater than potential benefit of preventing severe hospitalisation from covid.(14) This is yet another example of a failure to replicate industry-sponsored science, suggesting bias in industry-sponsored results and a need to be critical appraisers of scientific evidence.

A similar story of the overstatement of findings without attention to methodology applies to the highly publicized headline, “millions of lives saved” from a WHO report. While the headline is attractive, the data is derived from a modelling study that doesn’t enter into the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine studies (poor quality evidence) and has been described by the director of the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, Carl Heneghan, as “implausible”. (15) It’s like saying the best football team in the premier league is a 4^th division club whilst completely ignoring the Liverpool and Manchester cities of this world. In other words such a claim is fake.

Two of the world’s pre-eminent experts in oncology and immunology respectively feel there is strong mechanistic and clinical evidence through different pathways including prolonged immunosuppression and DNA contamination the Covid mRNA vaccines cause cancer. Please read correspondence from Professor Angus Dalgliesh and Professor Robert Clancy attached to this letter. The thought that billions of people have been injected with a potential carcinogen is so horrific to bear one can understand why medical professionals who encouraged patients to take the vaccine would rather choose to bury their heads in the sand. But such wilful blindness will not eliminate and ongoing problem. It is staggering beyond comprehension that the U.K is still recommending this product on such poor efficacy with serious unprecedented harms including irrefutable risk of death in the short term is a sizeable minority. I have no doubt in my mind that many people are walking around as a ticking bomb of heart disease, strokes and cancer as a result of this mRNA vaccine. We must do all we can to identify who is at risk and act to reduce it as much as possible.

Ultimately, what we have heard through the media is not evidence. The information provided to physicians is not unbiased science. It is pure propaganda, supported by a complicit and wilfully blind legacy media that is understandably losing trust amongst the population. The medical establishment simply cannot ignore the real-world impact of this horrific medical product on an increasingly vaccine injured and aware population. A recent survey in the United States revealed a large proportion of the public felt the covid vaccine was responsible for thousands of deaths, indicating that they no longer trust the information provided by the medical establishment. What they are told (e.g., “vaccines are safe and effective”) and what they believe (e.g., “vaccines are responsible for the excess death rate”) differ. The establishment is losing its credibility. People continue to be injured and die – and instead of senior scientists and medical leadership acknowledging these cold hard facts and addressing them properly, they spend time attacking professionals like myself, who are merely committed to providing the best possible evidence and care to patients.

The Root Cause: Institutional Corruption

The issues discussed in this letter merely scratch the surface of the complex and intertwined dynamics that maintain corrupt and colluded practices. The conditions that yielded disastrous health policy that killed millions are deeply rooted. In my opinion, the root cause is simple: Collusion and corruption of governmental bodies by psychopathic corporations that prioritise profits over the health of the people.

I often wonder how medical leaders—individuals who have dedicated their lives to saving and improving people’s health—can be so easily convinced to follow health policies that are not supported by unbiased or high-quality science. In my view, this is a problem of either the grossly ignorant, fearful and wilfully blind, or financially conflicted.

Why would medical leadership choose – after the accumulation of evidence now available through science, internal Pfizer documents released through courts, and US White House reports of corrupt practices – to deliberately support a narrative and “evidence” that supports the pharmaceutical industry? Only a policy maker (likely unwittingly) influenced as a downstream effect of the psychopathic determinants of health would behave in such a way. The aforementioned behaviour of the two people known to me in medical leadership positions asking me to “keep quiet of patient safety issues” are clear examples of these downstream effects. Our establishment is overinfluenced by a psychopathic entity. The conditions that drive this influence are deep. The entities are not independent – and any perception that our industry is independent is, in my view, grossly undermined by the fact that there is a revolving door between industry and government. Readers may recall the career path of Jonathan Van Tam, who left his government role as Deputy Chief Medical officer to accept a lucrative position at Moderna! (16)

As a respected leader in the medical community for decades, I have many first-hand experiences observing this type of intertwined corruption between industries. For example, prior to official publication of my paper calling for a suspension of the mRNA vaccines in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022, I acted in good faith and met personally with the chair of the health select committee, Jeremy Hunt, at a meeting organised by the Kings Fund a few months earlier. At the time, he thanked me for my campaigning for Action On Sugar and being a whistleblower in exposing ambulance delays. He recognized my work as having integrity and evidence based. We discussed, in person and followed up via email, about my own critical analysis of the data on the mRNA products, and why they should be suspended. This was a man who should, in theory, have influence to make a change; instead, he ultimately deferred me, shifting responsibility to the UK drug regulator, the MHRA.

According to a 2022 BMJ investigation, the MHRA “cannot be trusted” to be independent because they received 86% of their funding from the very industry they’re supposed to regulate. They were described as “a prime example of institutional corruption”. The same investigation revealed the US FDA receive 65% of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry. (17) In February of this year, the All Party Parliamentary Group of Pandemic Preparedness wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Health, Steve Brine, stating that the MHRA is a “serious risk to patient safety”. (18) They also released a public statement given by its chair, June Raine, proudly proclaiming that the role of the organisation has shifted from being “protector of the public “to “enabler” of Big Pharma in reference to drug approvals. It is beyond comprehension as to why a body whose duty it is to protect patients is changing its focus to support a psychopathic entity! Sadly, comments such as June Raine’s are not rare within the industry. Recently released secret WhatsApp messages by investigative journalist, Isabel Oakeshott, documented the former Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, asking the MHRA to shut down vax concerns at the very beginning of the roll out of the Astra Zeneca vaccine.(19)

Shutting down public concerns and silencing those speaking the truth is alone an absolute scandal.

The corporatisation of the mind has occurred in the profession – and this is in direct conflict with the Seven Nolan Principles. If we want to reclaim the integrity of the profession, it is critical that medical leadership disentangle from the pharmaceutical industry and refocus on what matters: quality science that saves patients.

This process begins by acknowledging the harms, investing in quality science – and not defaming those speaking the truth!

Personal Defamation for Speaking Up

On a personal level, the last few years have been a particularly challenging time. Having lost the last surviving member of my family in the summer of 2021, most likely as a result of the Pfizer vaccine, I have been suffering from depression, anxiety, chest pains, and a persistent flare up of an autoimmune condition. I’ve spent thousands of pounds undergoing investigations including two CT coronary angiograms in consecutive years and an upper GI endoscopy. Fortunately, these results have been normal, but symptoms persist. I have been formerly diagnosed with “vaccine injury specifically adversely affecting my gut microbiome through complete obliteration of bifidobacteria”. This is associated with cardiovascular disease, depression, and autoimmune disease. An advanced blood test has also suggested I’m at potentially increased risk of cancer, despite having no family history and being in perfect metabolic health.

Despite the pain I’ve endured over the past few years, I continue to speak out for the people – and the profession. I believe deeply in our profession and the foundational principles upon which it is based.

My commitment to the profession has been faced with attack by fellow colleagues. This is perhaps the most disappointing part of the past few years. What kind of human being publicly attacks and tries to humiliate an individual whose entire family is dead, simply for speaking up for the vaccine injured and patient safety? A dispassionate observer could describe this as insensitive at best, and sociopathic behaviour, at worst (again, in part, explained by the psychopathic determinants of health).

A prominent medic Dr Rachel Clarke, on several occasions, published multiple defamatory tweets since 2022 where she refers to me as “ex -NHS doctor” and “Britain’s most notorious anti-vaxxer”. She weaponised a Mail on Sunday story (which can only be described as a hatchet job on myself and two other public figures) on statins. I lost my NHS job that I loved, and was told by several NHS cardiologists (many of whom were supportive of my stance) that I would find it difficult to get back into the NHS for a consultant post because of this Mail on Sunday article. Recently, five years later, a libel case launched by the two others named in the piece was won. The article has been taken down. The corruption and the truth was revealed – yet, my job was still lost. Others who have posted similar defamatory tweets or made such comments include individuals such as Dr Matt Kneale and Trish Greenhalgh. Is this the type of behaviour that is deemed acceptable professional conduct by the GMC?

In my view, these healthcare professionals – through their relational aggression – are the ones undermining trust in the profession. They deliberately undermine voices raising patient safety concern. Such behaviour is in my view a danger to public health.

In keeping with the Seven Nolan principles, I can no longer remain passive in this situation, and I’ve therefore referred Dr Rachel Clarke, Dr Matt Neil and Professor Trish Greenhalgh to the GMC for such flagrant and egregious breach of GMC guidance. GMC guidance is clear:

“You must treat colleagues with kindness, courtesy and respect. To develop and maintain effective teamworking and interpersonal relationships you must: listen to colleagues, communicate clearly, politely and considerately, recognise and show respect for colleagues’ skills and contributions, work collaboratively with colleagues and be willing to lead or follow as the circumstances require…You must be compassionate towards colleagues who have problems with their performance or health. But you must put patient safety first at all times.” (20)

It is clear through the behaviour of these individuals that they are not acting in accordance with GMC. I publicly affirm in this letter that all accusations against me be dropped, and the attention instead be placed on the individuals who actively seek to hide the truth and censure those speaking out for patient safety.

A Path Forward

My advocacy to suspend the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is not an isolated voice. Many others stand with me, driven by a shared commitment to protecting public safety and ensuring accountability. There are increasing calls for a suspension of the COVID-19 mRNA products from a global community of doctors, academics, politicians and public figures. This includes the former Wimbledon champion, Pat Cash, and Jay Naidoo, who is the trade union leader (and close friend of the late Nelson Mandela, who served in his first cabinet). The GMC has received their correspondence. More specifically thousands of healthcare professionals including the nominated new director of the US National Institutes of Health, Dr Jay Bhattacharya, have signed the HOPE accord, a petition which explicitly gives the following recommendations: (21)

“Given that this is an international issue we recommend the following to all governments and medical establishment bodies worldwide:

THE IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF THE COVID-19 mRNA VACCINE PRODUCTS
A growing body of evidence suggests that the widespread rollout of the novel Covid-19 mRNA vaccine products is contributing to an alarming rise in disability and excess deaths.The association observed between the vaccine rollout and these concerning trends is now supported by additional significant findings. These include the discovery of plausible biological mechanisms of harm demonstrated in laboratory and autopsy studies, as well as high rates of adverse events seen in randomised clinical trials and national surveillance programs. Altogether, these observations indicate a causal link.This new technology was granted emergency use authorisation to address a situation that no longer exists. Going forward, the burden of proof falls on those still advocating for these products to compellingly demonstrate that they aren’t resulting in net harm. Until such evidence is presented, regulators should suspend their use as a matter of standard medical precaution.
A COMPREHENSIVE RE-EVALUATION OF THE SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF ALL COVID-19 VACCINE PRODUCTS
Independent investigations must be properly resourced to allow a comprehensive re-evaluation of all Covid-19 vaccine products.There must be a full exploration of mechanisms of harm to provide insight into their impact on the human body, both short and long term. Effectiveness must be reassessed through a comprehensive review of actual clinical impact on illness and mortality, as opposed to synthetic results based on modelled assumptions.We call on the scientific community to come forward with findings from unpublished Covid-19 vaccine studies. This will help mitigate publication bias, whereby unfavourable results were often rejected or withheld due to fears of reputational damage. Crucially, government bodies and the pharmaceutical industry must also provide full transparency, granting access to previously undisclosed anonymised patient-level data from clinical trials and surveillance programs.
These cumulative actions will help determine any real world benefit of these products versus the true extent of the damage caused.
THE IMMEDIATE RECOGNITION AND SUPPORT FOR THE VACCINE-INJURED
The denial of vaccine injury is a betrayal of those who followed official directives, often under coercion from mandates restricting their access to work, education, travel, hospitality and sports.The vaccine-injured must be recognised and every effort made to understand their conditions. Support should include readily accessible multidisciplinary clinics offering investigation and treatment as well as appropriate compensation for all those who have been harmed.
THE RESTORATION OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES ABANDONED DURING THE COVID-19 ERA
Fundamental and cherished principles of medical ethics were disregarded on the premise of an emergency. These included: ‘first do no harm’, informed consent, bodily autonomy and the notion that adults protect children – not the other way around. The precautionary principle was inverted. Also, particularly concerning was the erosion of free speech – a democratic principle that underpinned the ability to question untested interventions whilst ensuring other principles were upheld. The consequence was exposing the public, especially healthy young people – including children – to unacceptable risks of harm.Emergencies are never a reason to abandon our principles; it is precisely at such times that we most profoundly depend on them. Only after acknowledging they were wrongly abandoned can we commit to upholding them consistently and in doing so, better protect future generations.
ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF OUR CURRENT PREDICAMENT
The medical profession must lead by admitting we lost our way.
By drawing attention to these medical and ethical issues surrounding the Covid-19 response, we hope to validate and amplify the call to establish the relevant facts and ensure vital lessons are learned.An honest and thorough investigation is needed, addressing the root causes that have led us to this place, including institutional groupthink, conflicts of interest and the suppression of scientific debate.We ultimately seek a renewed commitment to the core principles of ethical medicine, returning to an era in which we strive for transparency, accountability and responsible decision-making throughout the spheres of medicine and public health.”

At this point in time, the evidence of the COVID mRNA product doing significantly more harm than good is overwhelming, even for the highest risk groups. The longer the General Medical Council, the Secretary of State for Health, and the Chief Medical Officer delay on acting on this, the greater the harm to public health, the further decrease in trust in the medical profession, and the more strain on an already failing NHS. It is evident that many physicians and medical leaders remain either unaware of the latest evidence or too deeply entrenched in the corrupted ties between the healthcare profession and the pharmaceutical industry to recognize clear conflicts of interest.

Let me be unequivocal: my mission is to protect patients from harm, not to serve pharmaceutical profits.

I ask for these unsubstantiated accusations against me be dropped and unprofessional, relational aggression showed against me be condemned – so that we can all go back to serving patients and restoring trust in the medical profession.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Aseem Malhotra

Consultant Cardiologist

HUM2N Clinic, Chelsea.

REFERENCES:

Dr Aseem Malhotra is a highly esteemed, award-winning consultant cardiologist based at at the HUM2N Clinic, London. He is a globally regarded specialist when it comes to diagnosing, preventing, and managing heart disease. His areas of expertise include evidence based medicine, collaborative shared decision-making with patients, obesity, coronary artery disease, preventive cardiology, as well as angina. Dr Malhotra graduated with a degree in medicine from the University of Edinburgh in 2001.

Brownstone Institute

A Potpourri of the World’s Unexposed Scandals

Published on December 17, 2024

Todayville

From the Brownstone Institute

By Bill Rice

How many genuine, shocking – and unexposed – scandals actually occurred in the last four years? To partially answer this question, I composed another of my List Columns.

The Most Epic of Scandals Might Be…

The world’s most epic scandal might be the massive number of citizens who’ve died prematurely in the last four years. This scandal could also be expressed as the vast number of people whose deaths were falsely attributed to Covid.

My main areas of focus – “early spread” – informed my thinking when I reached this stunning conclusion: Almost every former living person said to have died “from Covid” probably did not die from Covid.

The scandal is that (unreported) “democide” occurred, meaning that government policies and deadly healthcare “guidance” more plausibly explain the millions of excess deaths that have occurred since late March 2020.

My research into early spread suggests that the real Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of Covid should have already been known by the lockdowns of mid-March 2020.

If, as I believe, many millions of world citizens had already contracted this virus and had not died, the Covid IFR would be the same, or perhaps even lower, than the IFR for the common flu – said to be 1 death per 1,000 infections (0.1 percent).

Expressed differently, almost 100 percent of people who contracted this virus did not die from it – a fact which could and should have been known early in the “pandemic.” The fact this information was concealed from the public qualifies as a massive scandal.

Evidence That Would ‘Prove’ This Scandal

Furthermore, one does not need early spread “conjecture” to reach the conclusion that only a minute number of people who were infected by this virus later died from Covid.

After April 2020, a researcher could pick any large group or organization and simply ascertain how many people in these groups later died “from Covid.”

For example, more than 10,000 employees work for the CDC. About 10 months ago, I sent an email to the CDC and asked their media affairs department how many of the CDC’s own employees have died from Covid in the past three-plus years.

This question – which would be easy to answer – was never answered. This example of non-transparency is, to me, a massive “tell” and should be “scandalous.”

To be more precise, if the CDC could document that, say, 10 of their employees had died from Covid, this would equate to a disease with a mortality risk identical to the flu.

My strong suspicion is that fewer than 10 CDC employees have died from Covid in the last four years, which would mean the CDC knows from its own large sample group that Covid is/was not more deadly than influenza.

I’ve performed the same extrapolations with other groups made up of citizens whose Covid deaths would have made headlines.

For example, hundreds of thousands if not millions of high school, college, and pro athletes must have contracted Covid by today’s date. However, it is a challenge to find one definitive case of a college or pro athlete who died from Covid.

For young athletes – roughly ages 14 to 40 – the Covid IFR is either 0.0000 percent or very close to this microscopic fraction.

One question that should be obvious given the “athlete” example is why would any athlete want or need an experimental new mRNA “vaccine” when there’s a zero-percent chance this disease would ever kill this person?

The scandal is that sports authorities – uncritically accepting “guidance” from public health officials – either mandated or strongly encouraged (via coercion) that every athlete in the world receive Covid shots and then, later, booster shots.

Of course, the fact these shots would be far more likely to produce death or serious adverse events than a bout with Covid should be a massive scandal.

More Scandals

Needless to say, all the major pediatrician groups issued the same guidance for children.

In Pike County, Alabama, I can report that in four years no child/student between the ages of 5 and 18 has died from Covid.

I also recognize that the authorized “fact” is that millions of Americans have now “died from Covid.” However, I believe this figure is a scandalous lie, one supported by PCR test results that would be questioned in a world where investigating certain scandals was not taboo.

Yet another scandal is that officials and the press de-emphasized the fact the vast majority of alleged victims were over the age of 79, had multiple comorbid conditions, were often nursing home residents, and, among the non-elderly, came from the poorest sections of society.

These revelations – which would not advance the desired narrative that everyone should be very afraid – are similar to many great scandals that have been exposed from time to time in history.

Namely, officials in positions of power and trust clearly conspired to cover up or conceal information that would have exposed their own malfeasance, professional incompetence, and/or graft.

This Might Be the No. 1 Scandal of Our Times

As I’ve written ad nauseam, perhaps the most stunning scandal of our times is that all-important “truth-seeking” organizations have become completely captured.

At the top of this list are members of the so-called Fourth Estate or “watchdog” press (at least in the corporate or “mainstream” media).

In previous articles, I’ve estimated that at least 40,000 Americans work as full-time journalists or editors for mainstream “news organizations.” Hundreds of MSM news-gathering organizations “serve” their readers and viewers.

In this very large group, I can’t think of one journalist, editor, publisher, or news organization who endeavored to expose any of the dubious claims of the public health establishment.

When 100 percent of professionals charged with exposing scandals are themselves working to conceal shocking revelations…this too should qualify as a massive scandal.

To the above “captured classes” one could add college professors and administrators, 99 percent of plaintiffs’ trial lawyers, 100 percent of CEOs of major corporations, almost all elected politicians, and, with the exception of perhaps Sweden, every one of the public health agencies in the world, plus all major medical groups and prestigious science journals.

Or This Might Be Our Greatest Scandal

Yet another scandal – perhaps the most sinister of them all – would be the coordinated conspiracy to silence, muffle, intimidate, bully, cancel, demonetize, and stigmatize the classes of brave and intelligent dissidents who have attempted to reveal a litany of shocking truths.

The Censorship Industrial Complex (CIC) is not a figment of a conspiracy theorist’s imagination.

The CIC is as real as Media Matters, News Guard, The Trusted News Initiative, the Stanford Virality Project, and the 15,000-plus “content moderators” who probably still work for Facebook.

Government officials in myriad agencies of “President” Joe Biden’s administration constantly pressured social media companies to censor content that didn’t fit the authorized narrative (although these bullying projects didn’t require much arm-twisting).

Here, the scandal is that the country’s “adults in the room” were identified as grave threats to the agenda of the Powers that Be and were targeted for extreme censorship and punishment.

When people and organizations principled enough to try to expose scandals are targeted by the State and the State’s crony partners, this guarantees future scandals are unlikely to be exposed…which means the same unexposed leaders are going to continue to inflict even greater harm on the world population.

This Scandal Is Hard to Quantify

Other scandals are more difficult to quantify. For example, it’s impossible to know how many citizens now “self-censor” because they know the topics they should not discuss outside of conversations with close friends.

This point perhaps illustrates the state of the world’s “New Normal” – a now-accepted term that is scandalous if one simply thinks about the predicates of this modifier.

It should be a scandal that the vast majority of world citizens now eagerly submit to or comply with the dictates and speech parameters imposed on them by the world’s leadership classes.

The “New Normal” connotes that one should accept increasing assaults on previously sacrosanct civil liberties.

What is considered “normal” – and should now be accepted without protest – was, somehow, changed.

As I routinely write, what the world has lived through the past four-plus years is, in fact, a New Abnormal.

This Orwellian change of definition would qualify as a shocking scandal except for the fact most people now self-censor to remain in the perceived safety of their social and workplace herds.

The bottom line – a sad one – might be that none of the above scandals would have been possible if more members of the public had been capable of critical thinking and exhibited a modicum of civic courage.

As it turns out, the exposure of scandals would require large numbers of citizens to look into the mirror (or their souls) and perform self-analysis, an exercise in introspection that would not be pain-free.

It’s also a scandal our leaders knew they could manipulate the masses so easily.

Considering all of these points, it seems to me that the captured leadership classes must have known that the vast majority of the population would trust the veracity of their claims and policy prescriptions.

That is, they knew there would be no great pushback from “the masses.”

If the above observation isn’t a scandal, it’s depressing to admit or acknowledge this is what happened.

To End on a Hopeful Note

What gives millions of citizens hope is that, belatedly, more citizens might be growing weary of living in a world where every scandal cannot be exposed.

Donald Trump winning a presidential election by margins “too big to steal” is a sign of national hope.

Mr. Trump nominating RFK, Jr. to supervise the CDC, NIH, and FDA is definitely a sign of hope, an appointment that must outrage and terrify the world’s previous leadership classes.

For far too long, America’s greatest scandal has been that no important scandals can be exposed. Today, however, it seems possible this state of affairs might not remain our New Normal forever.

Republished from the author’s Substack