TMJ 'dysfunction' - Health implications

Dr Aseem Malhotra in conversation with Dr Campbell on YouTube about the mRNA gene therapy.

Dr Aseem Malhotra is a highly esteemed, award-winning consultant cardiologist.

In this piece, Dr. Malhotra fervently advocates for halting the use of mRNA gene therapies, citing significant health risks and fatalities associated with this unproven public health intervention.

Original video available at this link.
Transcribing this outstanding video presented a significant challenge because of the frequent repetitions and unavoidable inconsistencies in the spoken content. This is my most diligent attempt.

Dr. Malhotra: I've chosen to communicate directly and transparently with the GMC. My message will also reach the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Witty; the Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Patrick Valance; and our Secretary of Health, Wes Streeting. I will argue that their decision to continue these vaccines without pause is unjustifiable. The best data shows that vaccines cause at least eight times more harm than good.

We also possess evidence based on mechanical principles, backed by top specialists in cancer research and immune system studies like Angle and Dr Robert Clancy. There are strong, credible reasons why these conclusions are valid, supported by empirical data and an understanding of the body's normal and abnormal functions. The proof is compelling. I have outlined all this information in a letter available for free on my website, and I encourage everyone to read it.

Surprisingly, John, I got an unanticipated message this morning from a well-regarded American physician who had been a staunch opponent in this debate. After reviewing my article, he remarked, "Wow, I read this piece. You have completely opened my eyes."

Given my role in addressing wilful ignorance and the psychological obstacles that prevent many from recognising the truth, people need to read about it. John, despite the difficulties, this information must be made public and shared with the press. We have received positive coverage with support from the Hope Accord, and it has been featured in a leading Italian newspaper. Furthermore, Apple News in the UK has covered it, and it has been highlighted in various mainstream media platforms in India, the world's largest democracy. Notably, it has also reached major news outlets in Australia.

In my letter, I explained that the reason for going public is that openness serves as a potent antidote to flawed health policies. I chose to face any consequences that might come from this decision. John, my conscience won't let me stay silent and work in secret. The letter is comprehensive and includes a lot of relevant information. For example, you discuss the principles of public life and address the psychological obstacles to unbiased scientific progress. You've made excellent points about fear hindering objective scientific advancement. How does fear seep into science, an academic field that ideally should remain impartial? The answer lies in our shared humanity, John.

Dr. Campbell: I concur with your point, and it's clear that many individuals, including social scientists, are prone to fear. We've all felt it at various times, especially at the onset of the pandemic.

Dr Malhotra: It's not just my perspective; Matt Hancock's private WhatsApp messages, splashed across The Telegraph's front page, showed his intent to frighten the public into compliance. Fear was wielded as a tactic to exaggerate the threat of COVID-19, as emphasised in a recent report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The report suggests that authorities intentionally magnified the perceived danger of COVID-19 to justify lockdowns and promote vaccinations. This isn't science, John. It's unethical and outright wrong.

Fear can influence even the most brilliant minds. The obstacles to uncovering the truth are mainly psychological rather than a matter of intellect. Many knowledgeable doctors and scientists have been conditioned to view anyone who questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines as a conspiracy theorist. This mentality has become prevalent, and regrettably, one of the flaws within the medical field is a tendency toward arrogance.

Terrence Stevenson, the previous head of the General Medical Council (GMC) and one of my mentors, discussed this matter several years ago at a conference organized by BAPIO. The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), a well-respected organization, has supported me, although I have not yet made this public. I will be sharing that letter soon.
Since I help individuals understand intentional ignorance and the mental barriers that hinder acknowledging truth, which many are unaware of, people need to read that.

John, we had to go public with this info and share it with the press. We've got positive coverage thanks to the Hope Accord, which a major Italian newspaper has featured. Apple News in the UK has also picked it up, and it's grabbed the spotlight on various significant media channels in India, the biggest democracy in the world. Notably, it's now making headlines in Australia too.

In my note, I pointed out that the reason for publicising this information is that openness is a potent remedy for harmful health policies. I chose to face any consequences that might arise, John. My moral compass won't allow me to remain quiet and work in the background. The note is quite detailed and packed with relevant information.

Dr. Campbell: You cover the core tenets of public life and the mental blocks that hinder objective scientific progress. You've made some strong points. You've mentioned fear as a barrier to unbiased scientific advancement. How does fear make its way into science?

Dr. Malhotra: Science ought to stand as an autonomous field of study. However, we're all just people at the end of the day, right, John? That's the heart of the matter.

Dr. Campbell: I agree with you. Understandably, many people, including social scientists, tend to experience fear. We've all faced that at various points, and some continue to do so, especially when the pandemic started. Psychologically, this isn't just my viewpoint.

Through hidden WhatsApp chats and a headline article in the Telegraph, Matt Hancock revealed his intention to scare the public into submission. He aimed to overstate the threat of COVID-19 as a tactic. A recent HHS report suggests that authorities deliberately heightened the perceived danger of COVID-19 to enforce lockdowns and possibly to increase vaccination rates.

Dr. Campbell: Even top scientists and intellectuals can make mistakes when gripped by fear. We need more humility and less professional arrogance. Numerous factors are at play, and one significant psychological barrier is wilfull blindness. Moreover, some people have held their views for so long that changing them now feels almost impossible. They remain entrenched - only sinking deeper.

Dr. Malhotra: Sigmund Freud once noted that a clear sign of sanity is the willingness to change one's mind. Conversely, a delusion is a rigid, false belief maintained despite evidence proving otherwise. John, we must nurture an environment where individuals aren't afraid to acknowledge changes or admit mistakes, allowing them to shift their views. I'm unsure what we've developed; perhaps it's this cancel culture where people cannot change their opinions.

There are numerous ideas you can't voice, which hinders scientific advancement. Science thrives on recognising our beliefs as flawed when new information emerges.

We've both revised our viewpoints when faced with new facts, which isn't an easy task. Despite this, we still face heavy backlash for our previous beliefs. We've adapted as reliable information emerged. I've publicly acknowledged this: given all that's transpired, I've praised those who opted out of vaccination, calling them courageous and on the right side of history. That's my belief.

However, many chose not to get vaccinated for various reasons. Some were swayed by far-fetched ideas, like microchips in the vaccine or a grand scheme to harm us. Others assessed their low risk of COVID-19 and decided a new vaccine wasn't necessary, which was a reasonable conclusion. I might have made the same choice if I weren't a doctor treating patients or hadn't been somewhat pressured by my father. We've discussed this before, he was acting in my best interest based on his knowledge. Then, there are those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who often have less trust in authority due to their marginalised status. Their lack of confidence wasn't unfounded, and people had diverse reasons for their choices. Some people genuinely believe that traditional vaccines are harmful to them or their families, leading them to oppose getting the COVID-19 shot firmly. Different groups had their reasons for declining the vaccine, but few grasped then what we understand now.

Surprisingly, this issue isn't about smarts. The primary barriers to uncovering the truth are psychological rather than intelligence-related. Even well-informed doctors and scientists have taken on a view that echoes propaganda. They have been led to think that anyone questioning the vaccine's safety and effectiveness is spreading conspiracy theories. This mindset has taken root among them.

Furthermore, I touch on this in my letter: one of the weak points of the medical field is arrogance. As our world evolves and advances, nurturing a more profound compassion and understanding among people is crucial. This call for empathy becomes especially clear when looking at ideological and political splits. For example, some saw getting vaccinated as a moral obligation to safeguard others, considering those who opted out as selfish and unethical. This divide often stems from contrasting beliefs about the importance of the individual versus the collective.

Some argue that individual needs should take precedence over those of society, while others believe society's needs should come first. This ideological split was crucial in determining who supported vaccination and who did not. Interestingly, the loudest voices in this debate often came from the traditional right, emphasising personal responsibility and autonomy over community obligations. I don't agree with this perspective; it's possible to value both individual freedom and community well-being. However, the most vocal opponents of the authoritarian approach to vaccination, who have ultimately been validated by history, have predominantly been from the right.

Several years back, we hosted a conference in Houston where attendees questioned why my initial risk-benefit analysis was incorrect. They wondered why my viewpoint differed at the time, and I clarified that it was impossible to have all the facts then. Looking back and after consulting experts deeply involved in the field, it's evident that some informed individuals were aware of the issues. However, the information available to the public, including us, was inadequate for making well-informed decisions. This shortage of reliable information stemmed primarily from data being filtered through compromised sources, whether from the medical publishing industry or mainstream media.

Consequently, many of us have moved from trusting to doubting, constantly questioning things. I need to find my confidence again, but it's difficult to strike the right balance. This leads us to the Nolan principles, which set the standards for public servants: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. Unfortunately, these standards are often missing in today's system.

The letter highlights these flaws and seeks to avoid the typical routes, aiming to connect directly with the public and encourage scientific discussion. It's written plainly and avoids overly technical language, making it understandable to any informed layperson in roughly an hour. This method is a conscious attempt to address the widespread mistrust in our society.

Today's main problem is declining confidence in established institutions, including the medical field. It's difficult to know whom to trust until those in power and leadership positions fully commit to the Nolan principles.

Throughout my career, I've consistently aimed to uphold high ethical standards, particularly in medical ethics, which are essential to the healthcare field. This moral foundation makes our profession a privilege, allowing us to help others live their best lives. From the outset, whether in nursing or medical school, this commitment to ethics is deeply instilled in us and forms the essence of our identity as healthcare providers.

However, whenever we deviate from these ethical principles, things get complicated. Over time, the increasing influence of corporate interests has played a role in this moral decline. This problem stems from profit-driven entities undermining the core values and principles that should steer us. To tackle the issues our society faces today, those in positions of power must return to basic ethical values. Only by doing this can we rebuild trust and work towards a more compassionate and understanding world.

Even though I've been in this field for a while, encountering psychopathic entities, not the employees themselves, was a first for me. This realisation hit me hard when I became the youngest member appointed as a trustee of the King's Fund, a prestigious organisation that advises the government on health policy. The people there are truly remarkable, and I was honoured to join them. Everyone else at the table had been knighted, and then there was me, right? I've done some commendable work with the NHS.

John, that is why I decided to address the letter openly. Authentic leadership involves holding individuals accountable when they are not adhering to essential principles or when they feel they are failing to contribute positively. I have expressed that the system is failing to uphold these standards. While the actions of the people I have sent this letter may be well-meaning and well-intentioned, they are not effectively contributing to our goals. Therefore, it is imperative that they rectify your stance on the vaccine; it is no longer defensible now that we have overwhelming evidence from thousands of doctors. This issue is far too critical to ignore or dismiss.

John, the concern that weighs heavily on me, especially as someone who has personally suffered from vaccine-related injury, is the presence of numerous asymptomatic individuals in the population. I believe they are at increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and cancer. Until we fully address this, more individuals will continue to be harmed by a vaccine they received three years ago. You need to make this information public. You have undergone personal testing that indicates an elevated future cancer risk. This implies that most people have not had access to the sophisticated testing necessary to identify such risks.

The truth isn't always pleasant, but I'd rather live in the real world than in a false reality. A life lived in darkness has no meaning, John. As healthcare professionals, we need to address this issue because it's not going away. People are ignoring it, and the longer this continues, the more it will harm society's health and increase distrust.

We've dedicated our lives to reducing human pain, suffering, and death. It's not always pleasant, but it's real. The more we can prepare for upcoming challenges, the better we can develop treatment strategies. We're currently discussing new treatment options for cancer. Being forewarned is being forearmed, but right now, we're not being forewarned. Instead, we're being reassured that there's no issue.

Comment: The next couple of paragraphs are vital to take on board:

Sabine Hazan is a highly respected gastroenterologist. Gastroenterologists in America are among the most productive researchers, especially in the field of microbiome studies. Her findings are fascinating and played a crucial role in my diagnosis. I was experiencing severe chest pains and reflux symptoms intermittently, without understanding the cause. I also had a resurgence of psoriasis, a condition I had successfully managed years ago, but it came back persistently. Despite following my health advice meticulously and maintaining an excellent lifestyle, I couldn't figure out what was happening.

Dr. Hazan conducted an advanced microbiome test on me. She informed me that my results indicated severe vaccine injury, showing a complete absence of bifidobacteria. Her findings helped explain my symptoms, which appeared gradually over three years after vaccination. The test revealed that my bifidobacteria levels had slowly decreased to zero, indicating that my immune system was attacking the beneficial bacteria in my gut. Please read this article.

About vaccinations, we usually consider side effects to appear immediately or within a few days or weeks. We used to call these vaccines, but they are now known as genetic preparations. This change in terminology initially misled me. The possibility of long-term effects wasn't something I had considered at all. Another reason I was doubtful about the effectiveness of the vaccine is that flu shots, for example, are not as effective as we would hope.

It never crossed my mind that there could be a significant injury or serious harm involved. I was completely unaware. Honestly, John, there has been a highly effective propaganda machine in place, ensuring that anyone who questions vaccines is labelled as an outcast, insane, or something similar. We're starting to realise there might be some problems. I'm not suggesting it's a huge issue, but concerns need to be addressed. We require detailed research and specific data on the safety and risk profiles of each vaccine.

There are numerous vaccines available. We have always been diligent about ensuring our students are vaccinated against Hepatitis B. From my experience, Hepatitis B is a serious condition and certainly not pleasant. You brought up the quality of evidence and the transparency of information. This is relevant because there has been unquestioning trust in critical data provided by the pharmaceutical industry. In my letter, I mentioned that while I was working to reverse the vaccine mandates for healthcare workers, I spoke with the chair of the BMA at that time.

I knew Matt Hancock, but I didn't have a direct line to Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health. I tried to reach him, and when he finally heard me out, we had a two-hour conversation. He had received some poor advice. The chair of the BMA mentioned to me that no one seemed to have thoroughly reviewed the evidence, and most of their information came from the BBC, which was mainly repeating ER's press releases, according to Rochelle Walensky, the chair of the CDC. In the U.S., I expressed similar concerns about the CNN news report. I highlighted the misplaced trust in information from pharmaceutical companies, which gets disseminated by mainstream media and is then accepted as absolute truth.

What did Winston Churchill once say? He mentioned that a lie can make its way around the world before the truth has a chance to lace up its boots. This concept is effectively used by these manipulative entities with their public relations machinery. As a result, many people quickly form their opinions, making it a bit more challenging to correct misconceptions. Although it's possible to change minds, it's not easy. Additionally, there's the issue of relying on modelling studies, which don't hold the same weight in evidence-based medicine. Claims that vaccines have saved millions of lives are based on these studies, where arbitrary numbers are often fed into a system to produce results.

It effectively dismisses the evidence you've provided; it's not even on the hierarchy of proof—it's simply not recognised. It's not considered medical proof. Nevertheless, it's out there, and what they're basing their models on is often just fraudulent data, so you're essentially amplifying falsehoods. It's trash that becomes a headline, and then people start saying you get emails from the BBC's disinformation unit, which I received a few weeks ago. I think I forwarded it to you, stating that they were doing a story on the harmful claims I made on the Diary of a CEO podcast with Steven Bart. They focused on this issue, alleging that the vaccine had an overall negative impact on society, which I stand by and believe I could defend in court. I'm more than willing to take the BBC to court if they decide to challenge me on this.

Interestingly, they also sent emails to several others, including Brett Weinstein, Mark Hayman, and Gary Breer. It appears they're responding to recent events in America, as these podcasts were released during the summer. John, this is quite significant and worth noting. It might even impact you. Traditional media outlets are losing trust, while alternative media platforms are gaining more attention. This shift likely influenced the election of Donald Trump. Now, there appears to be an effort to clamp down on alternative media and target individuals with large followings to regain control.

Journalists often fail to see they're being manipulated by profit-driven, unscrupulous entities. They become unwitting participants in this scheme. The most effective way to combat this is to raise awareness, so it stops happening. Many traditional employees enjoy comfortable lives with good pay and prestige. However, innovations like the spinning jenny, printing press, or internet disrupt everything. Legacy media becomes obsolete, replaced by newer technology. People must adapt to these changes. Additionally, if Legacy Media had been transparent, honest, and upheld high journalistic standards, the rise of alternative media wouldn't have been as significant.

One way it's excelling is by identifying major gaps in reporting across various subjects. This is especially true in the field of health, which we find unacceptable. We must address this issue and explore its complexities. In discussions with other regions, people demand high-quality objectives. They often feel deprived of rigorous journalism and other essential elements.

You can't uncover a more profound truth without considering every perspective. Engage with the person who disagrees with you the most and really listen to him. Absolutely, and build from there. Shutting down differing opinions? It doesn't support a healthy society, it doesn't support democracy, and it's contrary to the principles of science.

Silencing free speech only fosters division and creates echo chambers. This isn't beneficial for a healthy society. Increased conflict and distrust lead to more problems, including mental health issues and, in extreme cases, violence. Moreover, it heightens our vulnerability in the digital age, a concept I like to call cyberisation. This term aptly describes the current situation we're facing.

Unfortunately, my friend Kennedy Jr. remarked that when people make outrageous comments, the answer isn't to silence them. Instead, he argued, the remedy for harmful speech is more dialogue and better arguments. How did we reach a point where our words might be proven incorrect? We must also have the humility to say, This is my current opinion, but I'm open to hearing your perspective. By the end of our conversation, we should both be wiser.

Honestly, I've lost money. What's intriguing about employment is that I lost my job with the NHS because I spoke out about statins, and there was a damaging article in the Mail on Sunday. Recently, a libel case was won by two others, Zoe Hark and Malcolm Kendrick. After my dad passed away, I chose to continue my campaign and disregard the backlash.

I couldn't get back into the NHS, and that was used against me when I started talking about the vaccine issue. They said, look at this guy. We shouldn't trust him; he's been kicked out of the NHS. It's a lot to handle, John, but for me, it's part of what happens when you speak out. Many greater people before me have taken bigger risks and suffered for it. Some have even gone to prison—like Mandela, who spent years behind bars for standing up for what he believed was right. People have even been assassinated. It's tough, but that's just how it is. For me, there's also a huge movement of people supporting voices like yours, the Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson of the world, and the platforms where I've been sharing this message.

So, it's not entirely bleak, but living alone has its challenges. All my family members have passed on. I'm incredibly resilient and self-sufficient. However, there are moments when I realise the people I cherished most are no longer with me, leaving me without emotional support. Therefore, I have to turn to spirituality, which provides me with comfort.

Dr. Campbell: I want to express my full support for your efforts. You have been outstanding. Your work is truly impressive, and that's because everything you've discussed is grounded in scientific research, which I can comprehend. I'm not claiming to be on your level, but I understand the topics we've covered.

When it comes to metabolic disease, everything aligns perfectly with the research I've encountered. Your insights on vaccines are also clear and understandable to me. The way the body functions and where it can go wrong ties back to pharmacology. It's important that speakers who base their views on evidence are heard, and I hope this adds some value to the conversation. Thank you. It is indeed a significant contribution. We progress through dialogue, discussion, and practising humility and compassion. It's not always easy because we face challenges and are human, reacting in specific ways.

However, this approach is ultimately the way forward. There's hope with the new Administration coming into power in America. There are disruptors we need to address to positively tackle corruption. We have many excellent scientists and brilliant minds, including you. You are one of the leading health economists globally, and there are others whose names we know but can't mention yet. These are highly credible doctors and scientists who will bring significant insights to the scientific and medical communities. There's hope in this process, but we must continue to persevere. We're making progress. Amen, see, bless you.

Dr. Malhotra: Thank you, John. I truly appreciate your words. Thank you.