A prominent consultant cardiologist in the United Kingdom, Dr Aseem Malhotra, was invited to give an interview on BBC News to discuss the benefits of prescribing Statin pills as a strategy for cutting the risk of heart attacks. What Dr Aseem Malhotra said in that interview clearly hit a nerve: that interview now has over 5.9 million views on Twitter.
Dr Malhotra spoke about the importance of lifestyle and dietary choices for improving cardiovascular health. But it was his his comments on the mRNA vaccines that drew most attention.
He took advantage of the interview to share his professional opinion, based on his own research and clinical experience, that whereas a reduction in the use of Statin was “unlikely” to be a cause of excess death, the mRNA Covid vaccines, known to carry a range of cardiovascular risks, are “almost certainly” a factor contributing to excess heart-related deaths in the United Kingdom. You can listen to the full interview below, tweeted out by Dr Aseem Malhotra himself.
The existence of serious risks associated with the mRNA Covid vaccines/gene therapies, including the risk of myocarditis, is now corroborated by numerous studies and acknowledged by public health agencies such as Florida’s Department of Health and the U.S. Center for Disease Control.
Scientists are still debating the extent of these risks, specifically the proportion of vaccinees affected by them. This is very difficult to measure with precision because vaccine adverse events tend to be underreported, and not all the vaccine data shared with the public is complete or sufficiently broken down for independent analysts to run the numbers in a precise way.
Honestly, I do not know whether Dr Malhotra is correct in attributing excess cardiac deaths to mRNA vaccine harms. Even assuming that the vaccines inflicted serious and debilitating harms on a significant fraction of vaccinees, and some of those harms translated into deaths caused by the vaccination, it does not necessarily follow that there were enough deaths to cause a noticeable spike in all-cause mortality, especially if the mRNA vaccines managed to save some lives and thus soften the population-wide impact of whatever deaths they did cause.
But what I am quite certain of is this: in a healthy democracy, a physician with a professional opinion at odds with the government’s and at odds with those of many of his colleagues should have a right to speak in the public square, and his appearance on television should not be decried as a national scandal. The notion that forthright criticism of government policy or of medical opinion should be suppressed, censored, or harshly penalised is anathema to the values of transparency, accountability and fairness so important to constitutional democracy.
Yet judging by some of the indignant reactions to Dr Malhotra’s BBC appearance, as well as the loud lamentations by public health officials and scientists over Twitter’s decision to allow vaccine critics to speak and be heard on social media, it appears that many influential people in the West no longer believe in democracy in the traditional sense.
Many influential people in Western nations seem to be pushing for something that looks more like technocratic authoritarianism than open and transparent democratic deliberation. Technocratic authoritarianism, which already has a firm grip over the Chinese regime, is essentially the notion that ordinary citizens are too stupid to be free to choose how to live: that they must be “guided” (a euphemism for coerced or manipulated) to make the most enlightened choices by an elite class of persons who purportedly have unique access to the best or latest “science.”
The adulation of the opinion of some experts and the contempt with which dissenting opinion (including the opinion of dissenting experts) is dismissed, can be seen in the following sorts of comments:
One of the signs that a democracy is in good shape is that people can disagree vehemently and publicly about important issues, yet not call into question each other’s right to have a voice in the public sphere. If there is a contested issue, each side, however unorthodox, gets to present their perspective and attempt to persuade the public, and the powers that be, of their position. We aim for a scenario in which both sides can accept the legitimacy of the outcome, provided it is produced by a fair and inclusive deliberative process.
Conversely, a clear sign that democracy is on a downward spiral toward authoritarianism is that only certain voices are considered “acceptable” to the dominant ruling class, while other voices, including the voices of credentialed scientists, are dubbed too “fringe” to be heard in the public square. The stronger and more dominant this exclusionary tendency becomes, the closer we are to abandoning the principles of free and open discourse upon which any free and flourishing society depends for its survival.
Thanks for reading! My work in defence of a free and open society depends on your continuing support. Here are four ways you can show your support:
upgrading to a paid subscription (giving you access to subscriber-exclusive content, such as the posts listed below)
making a one-off donation to my work, through my ko-fi page.
signing up to my social media channels, in particular Youtube, Twitter, Rumble, Telegram, and Spotify.
sharing this post on your social media accounts, or with a retweet:
Paying subscribers get access to subscriber-exclusive content such as the following:
Thank you. Championing the right to differing opinions is the right way to go, imho. Ppl condeming the view that statistically seems to prove c vx is causing a high number, or unreasonable number of deaths and heart injuries, they need to open their minds and eyes and research. With a death signal to phizers vx seems enough to stop and do more testing before injuring or ending anyone else.
Thank you David. The whiff of authoritarianism is not like a bad smell that the breeze will eventually blow away.
Removing or quashing free speech is followed by quashing free thought.
The current division between pro & anti injection is insurmountable when one side, or the other, absolutely refuse to even consider any alternative view, other than their own view.
It appears that human intellect has been subverted, diverted & is close to evaporating.