For audience members unfamiliar with Dr. Aseem Malhotra, he is a British cardiologist who is currently conducting a campaign with like-minded people to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in England. Once upon a time, he was in favor of COVID immunization, but his views changed after his father died of a heart attack. The vaccine injury was caused by the cardiac arrest. He believes that the harm caused by the vaccine was what killed his father. He is asking for all COVID immunizations to be stopped. The normal procedure for bringing forth a new biologic mechanism, practice guideline, or surgical technique is to first conduct pre-clinical experiments to determine whether your idea is correct, then gradually move towards human clinical trials. Over time, the surgical techniques for heart surgery on babies evolved into extremely safe techniques that are used in modern surgical suites. Congenital heart surgery is safer because of the arguments between surgeons and cardiologists. Russell Blalock, Helen Taussig, and Vivien Thomas were pioneers in my field who helped invent the first child heart surgery.
The procedures have been the same. Since their release, multiple universities and research teams have studied their safety and effectiveness and produced necessary studies to support their hypotheses. The same research and techniques have been used by the same teams. During his public appearances, Dr. Malhotra has claimed that people were having unreported, deadly or nearly deadly cardiac events after they received the vaccine. There hasn't been enough research done on this issue. His core points are presented without adequate evidence, which is usually the case with a cardiologist. He has made no effort to corral together the research group, research funding, or multi-center collaboration to produce the basic science, clinical science, or epidemiological research to show that his beliefs are supported by peer-reviewed evidence.
Most of his major talking points are shown in the lecture he gave to the Friends House. The task of decoding his lecture for the non-medically trained reader is much more difficult because he uses a tactic commonly used by the antivax community. After the death of his father, he decided to campaign against all forms of mRNA immunization, and he is currently on a worldwide tour trying to spread his point of view. Descriptions of physician bias and his perceived lack of ability to review the medical literature are the two main messages in his lecture.
A list of his main talking points and a discussion of the issues with his claims can be found below.
There is a need for pharmaceutical companies in the medical community. Time is one of the main reasons for this. Doctors can't invent drugs if they only see patients. Someone is going to have to do it. While some physicians are capable of doing new drug research, the research is extremely time intensive and not all physicians have the skills or time to find a new medication. Some doctors interact with pharmaceutical reps. I will let you know that there are associations with companies that provide the devices or medicines that cardiologists prescribe. Academic medical centers have several levels of safeguards to limit any influence that may come from a conflict of interests. One can find similar systems throughout medical training and practice for determining if an employee has a conflict of interests. Academic settings have severe punishments for failing to reveal conflicts. Patients in England and the United States can search online for a particular physician, PA, or advance practice nurse and identify any reported financial conflicts of interest prior to any appointment. This website is helpful for Britons and the same for Americans. If you don't like the conflicts of interest you are seeing, you can walk away and ask for a cheaper alternative. I will let the public know about my financial conflicts of interest. I don't prescribe the medicines sold by the companies that provided the meals because I don't think they were used for the conditions they were advertised for. A blanket statement that all doctors have an important COI is not accurate. It would be dangerous to refuse care for a life threatening heart failure because of a belief that too many hospital cardiologists are corrupted by pharmaceutical funding. Someone's life would be in danger if Dr. Malhotra's claims were generalized. How to solve the problem? I don't know how to stop funding for drugs. The root cause is that companies are always looking to make money.
Stephen Hawking was an astronomer who studied in England. He is partially famous because of his disease, which made him use a machine. One of the behaviors of black holes is named after him.
John is a physician-scientist with a specialty in data-based analysis of medical research. A lot of his claim to fame came from his essay "Why most published research findings are false". He pointed out our intellectual blind spots and conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry. His focus and opinions changed when COVID came along. He tried to criticize Meyerowitz-Katz in public without trying to address the substance of his arguments, and then reverted to a variety of ad hominem attacks. He underestimated the COVID death rate by trying to sneak in samples that weren't representative of the population. There was a paper with the name of the reality TV show. He has made a number of factual errors in his reporting but has not acknowledged or apologized for them. Academic staff admit that one of the occupational dangers of research is being incorrect. bling down is not a good plan of action.
Professor Hawking tried to help grad students choose physics. He worked very hard to get where he is. He did not allow his disability to affect his will to live. He admitted one of his mistakes and said he was responsible for it.
conflating these two scholars is questionable because of their very different fields of expertise, different attitudes towards trainees, and different attitudes towards changing direction once the empirical evidence changes
I don't mind if the pharmaceutical companies get harsher penalties for getting things wrong if they are honest. The doctors are frustrated when things happen. It's not a good idea to live in paranoia and think every medicine is a pharma scandal just waiting to be discovered. Big pharma's bad behavior doesn't mean all of their products are bad.
This is a genuine problem in medicine and the scale and scope of the problem is an area of active debate. The physics of the heart are not something that should be debated in medicine. It's not correct to say that physicians are ignoring the issue. When trying to reduce the harms of individual and combined medications, physicians are trained to try and sort out side effects. There are computerized medicine entry systems that try to alert physicians. Areas of medicine are dedicated to this problem. People hostile to traditional medicine want to distort this out of context. The Duke University guide shows how healthcare systems and workers are trying to reduce iatrogenic harms of medications.
The European Society of Cardiology recommends that patients with coronary artery disease or those who have suffered a heart attack take a drug to block their arteries after surgery. The goal was to decrease demand on the heart in order to prevent heart attacks in people who have already had a heart attack. Some patients suffered serious side effects from this approach. The person who recommended this practice was a doctor named Don Poldermans, who was later disciplined for his conflicts of interest. The European Heart Journal immediately responded to the work and withdrew it. The actual number of deaths may be underestimated. An experienced cardiologist would be able to see that the beta blocker doses used were likely too high if he were to dig deeper into the research that claims to have shown harm to patients. One of the ways to reduce perioperative risk in patients with heart disease is to use lower doses of beta blockers. This research does not mean that patients should be scared of all the beta blockers. It would be wrong to not mention the checks and balances that led to the correction of the policy.
I challenge audience members to look for a doctor who recommended a bad lifestyle to a patient. Seizures, like others, do not have simple cures, and need daily medication. The patients don't fault them for needing daily medication. In clinical practice, the actual action of helping a patient achieve a more healthy lifestyle involves figuring out what the patient is willing to do, identifying any relevant socio-economic barriers, and engaging in followup. It is a long and complicated process, and anyone who has tried to quit smoking, lose weight, or exercise more will know how hard it can be. Because of time, sometimes we can't have a full discussion. I would love to teach someone how to cook fattoush. It's definitely true! I can't do this for every appointment I have with a patient One would think that a cardiologist like Dr. Malhotra would be aware of the barriers to a healthy lifestyle, but he chose to ignore them in the lecture. It wasn't helpful. Many doctors are ready to help one lead a healthier lifestyle. It is not easy to flip a switch. One doesn't need to buy a cardiologist to lead a healthy lifestyle. A healthcare professional who can help improve eating habits is an example in the US.
The antivaccine narrative is supported by the fact that the absolute risk reduction is always smaller than the relative risk reduction. Two different ways of presenting the same outcome are used. Let's say you want to compare the number of apples in the refrigerator on one day versus another, but you don't want to use the detailed mathematics. You have 20 apples to start with. You will end up with 18 apples, but this can be said to be either a 2 apple reduction or 10% reduction in apples. It's just two different views. One number is not more scheming than the other. Bring the journal article to the office visit if you need to discuss this with your doctor. It takes time and you should be prepared to do it more than one time. Some patients don't care for informed consent when analyzing journal articles. The RRR has always been used by immunization epidemiology in this topic. It doesn't depend on the amount of the pathogen in circulation.
When one or more arteries of the heart become dangerously narrow, it's a good time to place a coronary stent. Issues with clotting, inflammation, and cellular function are not alleviated by the narrowing, and long-term drugs are needed to address them. If there was a way to switch off that problem with one pill, that would be great. At the moment, there is no pill like that. A mixture of high cholesterol, abnormal function of, and inflammation in the arteries of the heart is called Coronary Artery Disease. It's against shelves and shelves of research to remove medications completely. You can't stop the abnormal processes just because you have a heart device. Taking all the medicines away is very risky. Do the experiment to see if your favorite supplement is better than statin. It's not acceptable to just say you're going to stop taking cholesterol-lowering drugs because of your beliefs. All the red rice yeast in the world won't bring cholesterol down to a safe level, and there are several genetic factors that predispose people to high cholesterol.
In the lecture, there was no need to blame patients. There are many different causes of Obesity that have their own field of medicine that studies them. This isn't a single issue. It takes a systematic approach to help patients with Obesity is rising in many countries, however it takes a systematic approach to help patients with Obesity is rising in many countries, however it takes a systematic approach to help Patients with Obesity is rising in many countries, however it takes a systematic approach to help
Fast food should be removed from the hospitals. Hospitals should show their patients how to live a healthy lifestyle.
Steven Gundry is a former cardiac surgeon who is now providing concierge services. I talked to him about how he tried to use a test to measure inflammation in the arteries of patients who hadn't been vaccined. While his hypothesis and intentions were reasonable, he designed a study with no of the usual statistical controls and safeguards that would be expected of a study of this nature. This is not acceptable and should not have received praise. In cardiology, we frequently use tests and medicines outside of their original design specifications, but this is not done in the absence of peer evidence. The PULS test has never been used to assess the impact of immunizations. One should expect lab test results to reflect the intent of the injection they are about to undergo. Dr. Gundry would need to repeat the test with a control group. The study should show that we all missed the vaccine-accelerated coronary atherosclerosis, myocarditis, and dilated cardiomyopathy. It's not true if you only proclaim this is true.
One of the members of the UK HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) group is a British Pathologist named Dr. Craig who wants to abolish all vaccinations. She tries to prove her point by using articles that debunk her point. She is tied to the idea that vaccinations cause carbon dioxide. She doesn't think people can die of carbon dioxide. She doesn't think the elderly catch Covid. Your position is not a good one if she is your consultant.
It is cherrypicking one sentence in an article and hoping the reader doesn't pay attention to the next sentence which says this result was likely affected by. The court of scientific peer review does not accept such tactics. The conclusion of the article is very clear and consistent with the results of other research groups, which is a good sign.
This is a man who preaches research integrity in one breath, and attempts to distort an article in the very next. Sleight of hand is not cool.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
