Dr Aseem Malhotra Blames Regulatory Capture for Vaccine and Drug Harms

Aseem Malhotra 医生将疫苗与药物危害归咎于“监管俘获” 心脏病专家 Aseem Malhotra 医生认为，制药业对卫生监管机构和媒体的影响，掩盖了新冠疫苗广泛的心脏副作用以及他汀类药物的过度开药问题。 Aseem Malhotra 医生认为，现代医疗过度依赖他汀类等药物干预，却忽视了饮食、超加工食品和长期压力在引发心脏病中的根本作用。结合个人家庭悲剧，他对关于新冠 mRNA 疫苗安全性的官方说法提出质疑，指出心肌炎和动脉炎症等不良事件风险。Malhotra 医生还批评了公共卫生机构内系统性的监管俘获现象，主张通过生活方式医学、饮食改革、代谢健康监测以及与患者坦诚沟通，来应对全球心血管健康危机。 合理开具的处方药已被评估为仅次于心脏病和癌症的全球第三大死亡原因；以他汀类药物（statins）为例，连续服用5年平均仅能延长4.2天的预期寿命。 (0:00) 发表在期刊《Vaccine》上对辉瑞与Moderna临床试验数据的重新分析显示，严重不良事件的发生率高达1/800，且其中约40%与肺栓塞、心肌梗死等凝血障碍相关。 (27:03) 英国官方数据显示，在奥密克戎（Omicron）疫情期间，需要为2,500名70岁以上的老人接种两剂辉瑞疫苗，才能预防1例COVID-19住院病例。 (31:31) 药企在试验中宣称疫苗具有95%的相对风险降低（RRR），但实际的绝对风险降低（ARR）仅为0.84%，这种统计夸大掩盖了微弱的绝对获益并损害了患者的知情同意权。 (46:30)

Consultant cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra argues that modern healthcare has become compromised by commercial incentives that overstate drug benefits and conceal side effects, asserting that non-pharmacological lifestyle interventions should instead serve as the first-line treatment for chronic cardiovascular disease. Commercial Capture and the Misleading Framing of Risk (0:00) Malhotra contends that medical practice is warped by pharmaceutical commercialization, citing estimates that appropriately prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally. He claims clinical trial data routinely distorts perceived efficacy by promoting relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction. In early COVID-19 vaccine trials, for example, a marketed 95% relative protection translated to an absolute risk reduction of 0.84%, requiring 119 people to be vaccinated to prevent one infection. Similarly, for primary prevention using statins, Malhotra states that five years of daily medication yields a 1 in 100 absolute reduction in non-fatal heart attacks or strokes with zero prolongation of life. Institutional independence is further undermined by funding dependencies. Malhotra notes that the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) receives 86% of its funding from the pharmaceutical sector, according to an investigation published in The BMJ. Furthermore, he highlights that critical public health figures and institutions like the British Heart Foundation receive substantial industry-linked funding, creating systemic biases that suppress rigorous independent appraisal. COVID-19 Interventions and Safety Controversies (20:34) While initially promoting COVID-19 vaccines to minority communities, Malhotra revised his stance following the sudden cardiac death of his father in July 2021 and emerging research on post-vaccine arterial inflammation. He cites an abstract in Circulation indicating an increase in 5-year heart attack risk from 11% to 25% within eight weeks of mRNA vaccination, alongside a re-analysis in the journal Vaccine showing a 1 in 800 rate of serious adverse events—such as hospitalization or disability—which he argues outweighed the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization for lower-risk groups. Mainstream medical bodies, including the NHS, the MHRA, and the British Heart Foundation (BHF), strongly dispute Malhotra's conclusions, stating that serious cardiac side effects like myocarditis remain extremely rare at roughly 1 in 10,000. Host Steven Bartlett also points out counter-arguments from figures like Professor Mark Dweck, who described Malhotra's stance as misguided and dangerous. However, Malhotra points to UK real-world figures from early 2023 showing that during the Omicron wave, 2,500 people over 70 had to receive two Pfizer doses to prevent a single hospitalization, alongside pharmacovigilance reports comprising 800,000 Yellow Card events for AstraZeneca and 500,000 for Pfizer. Root Causes of Heart Disease and Lifestyle Medicine (89:29) Challenging the conventional medical focus on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, Malhotra argues that baseline LDL has no clear relationship to heart disease across roughly 95% of the population. Instead, he identifies insulin resistance as the undisputed biological driver of arterial plaque formation, with poor diet alone responsible for approximately 50% of heart disease globally. He advocates treating ultra-processed foods (UPFs)—which make up over 50% of UK and 60% of US daily calories—like tobacco through strict taxation, while noting that only one in eight American adults meets all five criteria for optimal metabolic health. To reverse and prevent cardiovascular disease, Malhotra prescribes non-pharmacological interventions spanning nutrition, exercise, and stress management. He recommends a whole-food diet low in refined carbohydrates and rich in vegetables, berries, olive oil, and oily fish, combined with 150 minutes of weekly moderate activity, warning that excessive endurance exercise can increase cardiac risk. Emphasizing that chronic stress carries a cardiac risk equivalent to smoking or type 2 diabetes, he points to a study in Mount Abu, India, where 40 minutes of daily Raja Yoga meditation was the sole independent predictor of a 20% average reduction in coronary arterial blockages. Malhotra maintains that restoring public faith in medicine requires transparent institutional self-reckoning, while host Bartlett emphasizes the societal difficulty of acknowledging medical errors without unintentionally damaging overall trust in public health interventions.

英国心脏病专家 Aseem Malhotra 医生认为，现代医疗体系深受制药资本商业驱动，导致药物过度处方并掩盖微弱的绝对获益，忽视了生活方式干预这一慢性病根本解法。他主张心血管疾病的核心诱因在于胰岛素抵抗、超加工食品与慢性压力，并对新冠 mRNA 疫苗的安全性评估与知情同意程序提出强烈质疑。 药物效益统计与医疗体制商业偏倚 (0:00) Malhotra 指出，有可靠估算显示按正规处方使用的药物已成为全球第三大死因，仅次于心脏病和癌症。他批评医药产业利用统计技巧夸大疗效，最典型的手段是以“相对风险降低”（RRR）替代“绝对风险降低”（ARR）。例如降脂药他汀（statin）在初级预防中，服用五年的非致命心梗或中风绝对风险降低仅为 1%，且无法延长寿命；在二级预防中，五年平均延长的寿命也仅为 4.2 天。然而，全球目前约有 2 亿人服用他汀。类似手法亦见于新冠疫苗试验，其宣称的 95% 相对有效率对应的实际绝对风险降低仅为 0.84%，初始需为 119 人接种才能预防一例感染。 这种偏倚折射出深层的制度性利益冲突。Malhotra 援引《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）调查指出，英国药品与保健品管理局（MHRA）86% 的资金直接源自药企，削弱了监管独立性。他回顾参与糖税政策的经历表示，英国政府在制定肥胖战略期间与食品行业代表举行了 99 次会议，却未曾与公共卫生医生展开正式会晤。他认为，资金依赖和同行制约导致学术界对药物局限性及非专利生活方式疗法保持沉默。 胆固醇假说局限与胰岛素抵抗致病机制 (77:59) 针对数十年来将低密度脂蛋白（LDL）视作“坏胆固醇”的主流学说，Malhotra 指出该假说存在明显局限。早期弗雷明汉研究发现的胆固醇与心脏病相关性，仅存在于总胆固醇高于 10 mmol/L 或 LDL 高于 7–8 mmol/L 的极高水平人群中；对于占人口 95% 的中间群体，胆固醇水平与心脏病并无明确关联。人体 80% 的胆固醇由基因决定，且其对细胞膜与激素合成必不可少。心血管疾病中高达 80% 与环境和生活方式相关，其中不良饮食诱发的代谢紊乱占约 50%。 Malhotra 强调，驱动动脉斑块堆积的核心病理因素是长期高胰岛素水平与细胞胰岛素抵抗。人体可通过糖异生自给葡萄糖，生理上对添加糖需求为零。然而，世卫组织建议成年人每日游离糖上限为 6 茶匙（24克），英美人群日均摄入却超 20 茶匙（80克以上）。占英美居民热量摄入 50% 至 60% 以上的超加工食品（UPF）已与至少 32 种疾病相关，应视同“新烟草”予以严加征税与监管。目前仅 12.5% 的美国成年人代谢指标完全正常，超过半数的急性心肌梗死住院患者伴有代谢综合征。 慢性压力机制与生活方式逆转心血管疾病 (103:39) 除饮食外，Malhotra 指出中重度慢性压力带来的心脏病风险等同于吸烟、高血压或 2 型糖尿病。《柳叶刀》（The Lancet）研究显示，主观压力过高会激活大脑杏仁核，引发血液凝血因子升高与全身炎症，最终诱发心梗。与之相对，非药物干预具备逆转血管病变的潜力。印度阿布山（Mount Abu）针对 50% 至 70% 冠状动脉狭窄患者的研究显示，在坚持高纤维素食、每日两次 30 分钟快走及 40 分钟王瑜伽（Raja Yoga）冥想两年后，患者动脉狭窄平均逆转 20%；其中每日冥想是斑块缩小的唯一独立预测因素。 在预防日常中，Malhotra 倡导结合地中海饮食与适度运动。他推荐每周进行约 150 分钟中度运动（如骑行保持心率在约 115 次/分），并警惕过度耐力训练。数据显示，约 11% 的精英耐力运动员在 50 岁时出现严重冠脉病变，每日高强度运动超 1 小时还会使呼吸道感染风险升高四倍。此外，牢固的社交连接同样关键，实验表明高社交支持人群暴露于感冒病毒后的患病率仅为三分之一，远低于孤立人群的三分之二。 新冠疫苗风险评估、争议与制度信任危机 (20:34) Malhotra 重新审视新冠疫苗始于其父在 2021 年 7 月突发心梗猝死（救护车延误至 30 分钟抵达，尸检显示严重动脉病变）。他注意到《Circulation》摘要显示 mRNA 疫苗可引发冠状动脉炎症，使 5 年心梗风险标志在 8 周内由 11% 升至 25%。此后发表于《Vaccine》的试验重新分析指出，该疫苗导致严重不良反应的风险约为 1/800。结合英国官方 2023 年数据，奥密克戎期间 70 岁以上人群需为 2500 人接种两剂才能预防一例住院，而在 50 岁以下人群中，预防一例住院所需的接种人数（NNTV）激增至数十万人。 主持人 Steven Bartlett 对此援引主流权威反驳：爱丁堡大学 Mark Dweck 教授指责其言论“误导且危险”，多数专家对此反对；英国心脏基金会（BHF）指出心肌炎风险极低（最高约万分之一）；NHS 与 MHRA 亦重申疫苗经严格监测且严重不良极罕见。Malhotra 则援引以色列关于年轻人心血管急症增加 25% 的论文及英国黄卡报告数据（Pfizer 疫苗报告约 50 万份，阿斯利康约 80 万份），坚称缺乏透明知情同意与长期数据的全民强推已构成净危害。 Malhotra 呼吁医学界应通过坦诚面对过失来重建公众信任，强调减少痛苦的根本途径在于不受利益绑架的开放对话。然而，本期节目亦突显了深刻分歧：主流卫生机构担忧过激言论将催生非理性恐慌并波及常规儿童疫苗（如 MMR 接种率下滑）；而在商业资助深度介入科研与监管的大背景下，如何在保障批判性质疑与维护公共卫生秩序之间取得平衡，仍是尚未解决的体制困局。

## Background 该视频由知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2024 年 7 月 25 日发布在 YouTube 平台。页面简介介绍嘉宾为英国知名心脏病学顾问医师阿西姆·马尔霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra），本期节目旨在揭示心脏病的真正疗法、批判现代处方药过度依赖及揭露被隐藏的医疗内幕。 ## TL;DR 马尔霍特拉医生在节目中对新冠 mRNA 疫苗的风险收益比提出了强力质疑，结合父亲异常猝死及多项独立临床重分析，直指大规模推广造成了净负面影响与心血管超额死亡。他尖锐批评现代医疗体系被跨国制药巨头深度利益绑架，过度夸大他汀类降脂药等处方药的微弱获益，却掩盖其生活质量损伤与广泛副作用。马尔霍特拉呼吁公共卫生重心应彻底转向根治胰岛素抵抗，通过戒绝超加工食品与高糖、管理慢性压力、适度锻炼及建立高质量人际联结，从源头逆转和预防心血管疾病。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话沉郁凝重又极具思想冲击力，既有嘉宾揭开父母接连因系统失误和突发心脏病离世时的锥心之痛，也有面对建制派打压与匿名威胁时坦荡无畏的学者风骨。主持人巴特利特展现出敏锐而克制的追问风格，在尖锐质疑与深层共情之间自如切换。录音室现场摆出真实白糖等道具的具象演示与底层病理解构，让聆听过程充满直面残酷真相的不适与启迪，贯穿着对医学伦理、人道主义之爱以及不畏审查追求真理的深沉呼唤。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=0s) 马尔霍特拉医生指出，处方药不良反应已成全球第三大死因，医疗体系受商业资本驱动过度开药，必须从以药物为中心转向以生活方式干预为主导。 - [28:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1694s) 针对辉瑞和莫德纳临床试验的独立重分析显示，新冠 mRNA 疫苗严重不良事件发生率约为 1/800，远超历史上因安全隐患撤市的疫苗阈值。 - [01:25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5100s) 临床试验数据显示，一级预防人群连续服用他汀类药物 5 年，仅有 1% 几率预防非致命心脑血管事件，预期寿命延长为 0 天；而约 20% 患者会出现疲劳和肌肉酸痛等副作用。 - [01:29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5363s) 超加工食品和添加糖诱发慢性胰岛素抵抗，是导致半数以上心脏病的核心元凶；只要改善饮食、戒除超加工食品，全球每年心血管死亡人数有望在一年内减半。 ## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=0s) 处方药不良反应是继心脏病和癌症之后的全球第三大死因，医疗指南与临床决策长期被药企商业利益扭曲。 - [04:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=295s) 从介入心脏病学转向生活方式医学：虽然微创支架等技术挽救急性患者，但无法根治因生活方式引起的慢性心血管病变。 - [14:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=886s) 马尔霍特拉父亲突发心梗离世，尸检显示冠状动脉异常急剧狭窄，结合多项医学影像与文献，促使他深入调查疫苗的心血管炎症风险。 - [28:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1694s) 《Vaccine》期刊刊登的独立试验重分析表明，新冠 mRNA 疫苗严重伤害率达 1/800，其中 40% 与肺栓塞、心肌梗死等凝血与心血管异常相关。 - [31:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1887s) 真实世界数据显示，在奥密克戎流行期间，70 岁以上老年人需接种约 2,500 人才能预防 1 例住院，年轻群体的接种获益比更严重倒挂。 - [45:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2706s) 药企在宣传中混淆相对风险降低（如宣称 95%）与绝对风险降低（实际仅 0.84%），剥夺了公众对药物真实疗效的知情同意权。 - [01:03:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3824s) 英国药品监管机构（MHRA）高达 86% 的经费来自制药工业，这种深度的资金依赖导致监管机构与医学建制圈子丧失独立性。 - [01:12:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4342s) 心脏病本质上是冠状动脉内部斑块破裂、继发血栓阻塞血流导致的缺血坏死，甚至在极小缺血面积下也可能诱发致命的心室颤动。 - [01:17:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4638s) 胆固醇是维系生命与激素合成的基石，体内 80% 胆固醇为内源性合成，将低密度脂蛋白（LDL）单一视为致病罪魁祸首是医学界的教条误区。 - [01:22:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4949s) 他汀类药物的心血管边际益处主要源于其多效性抗炎与抗凝作用，而非单纯压低 LDL 指标；二级预防服用 5 年仅平均延长寿命 4.2 天。 - [01:29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5363s) 不良饮食引发的高胰岛素血症与胰岛素抵抗是心血管硬化的深层病因，人体生理上对添加糖的需求量实际上为零。 - [01:37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5820s) 超加工食品充斥工业添加剂与游离糖，应视作“新时代的烟草”通过立法与重税进行干预管制。 - [01:39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5954s) 代谢综合征（腰围、甘油三酯、好胆固醇、血糖、血压五项中异常达三项）占据过半心梗病例，全美仅约 12% 成年人代谢达标。 - [01:41:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6114s) 中度以上的慢性压力会过度激活大脑杏仁核，推高血液凝血因子与炎症水平，对心脏的破坏力不亚于长期吸烟与糖尿病。 - [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6642s) 运动无法跑赢不良饮食，极端超量耐力运动反而增加心血管病理损害与免疫抑制；心脏健康的基石在于适度运动与每晚 7 小时以上睡眠。 - [01:55:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6917s) 高质量人际互动与拥抱能显著激活舒缓神经、降低皮质醇并筑牢免疫屏障；孤独已成为削弱抗病能力的现代流行病。 - [01:58:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7138s) 医学的进步唯有建立在开放对话与不惧权威质疑的土壤中，掩盖错误与实施言论审查只会让公众信任彻底瓦解。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=0s) 序幕：备受争议的观点与医疗体系的阴暗面 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉医生（Dr. Aseem Malhotra）开篇便提出了一个极具冲击力的观点：依据他所掌握的所有证据，他不得不遗憾地得出结论——新冠疫苗的大规模推广对人类社会产生了灾难性的净负面影响。作为英国知名且极具影响力的心脏病学专家，他过去的研究曾广泛推动有关营养、运动及医疗体系改革的公共讨论，而这一立场是他首次向公众公开披露。 马尔霍特拉指出，整起事件的疑点源于《泰晤士报》（The Times）一名记者向他透露的情况：苏格兰各大医院的心脏病发作病例意外激增了 25%，且原因不明。当对方询问是否可能与疫苗有关时，他感到震惊，并随后展开深入追查。他坦言，看透真相后内心极为痛苦，因为当代医疗知识早已被商业资本牢牢控制。医疗体系在追逐利润时表现出近乎“精神变态（psychopathic）”的冷酷。 他揭示了现代医学中一个长期被掩盖的肮脏秘密：处方药的大量滥用正在造成巨大的伤害。一项公认的可靠估算显示，在全球范围内，处方药不良反应已成为继心脏病和癌症之后的第三大常见死亡原因。正因如此，马尔霍特拉呼吁，必须彻底转变当下的医疗模式——从以药物为中心的治疗方案，转向以生活方式干预为主导的健康管理。 - 据预测，到 2030 年，全球每年因心脏病死亡的人数将达到约 2,330 万人。 - 全球有超过 2 亿人正在长期服用他汀类降脂药（Statins）。 - 统计数据显示，在 5 年的周期内，他汀类药物为患者带来的平均预期寿命延长仅有微不足道的 4.2 天。 --- ### [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=94s) 频道创作者致谢与承诺 在访谈正题开始前，主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）插话向长期收听和关注《CEO 日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）的观众致以诚挚的感谢。他表示节目的成长完全超出了团队最初的想象，但一切才刚刚起步。巴特利特呼吁常客观众点击订阅，并郑重承诺将倾尽全力保证节目品质，持续邀请观众最渴望聆听的嘉宾，带来深度而有价值的内容。 --- ### [02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=144s) 纪录片《首先不造成伤害》与处方药物的隐患 访谈正式开始，主持人询问马尔霍特拉为何将其即将上映的纪录片命名为《首先不造成伤害》（*First Do No Pharm*）。马尔霍特拉解释，这个极具巧思的标题（双关了医学誓言与制药工业 Pharmacy/Pharm）是由联合制片人唐纳尔·奥尼尔（Donal O'Neill）提出的。奥尼尔曾是一名国际运动员，并在公关与营销领域经验丰富，非常擅长提炼精练有力的标语。 马尔霍特拉表示，这个标题完美契合了他过去十余年来的核心使命：将医疗重心从以药物为主导的模型，转变为基于生活方式干预的模式。之所以要做出这种转变，不仅是因为改善生活方式具有最坚实的科学证据，而且它还能根治医疗系统中的巨大浪费与过度开药。在诊室中，每位医生的首要准则应当是：只要存在非药物的方式来应对慢性疾病，就必须将其作为首要治疗策略。 该片名同时改编自医学伦理中最古老、最核心的基本准则——"首先，不造成伤害"（*First, do no harm*）。令人震惊的是，即便是在医生“完全合规且适度”开具处方的情况下，药物带来的伤害依然居高不下。马尔霍特拉指出，每次在世界各地演讲谈及“处方药是全球第三大死因”时，台下的听众都会倒吸一口凉气，连他自己反复思索时也会感到不寒而栗。之所以陷入这种困境，核心在于医生用来做临床决策的数据基础普遍被药厂严重夸大了药物的安全性和实际获益。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代药物治疗模式与生活方式干预模式对比 accDescr: 对比商业主导的药物治疗模式带来的过度开药问题，与倡导以生活方式为首选的健康干预路径。 subgraph Current["当前的商业主导药物模式"] A["商业化医学知识与利益驱动"] --> B["夸大药物疗效与安全性"] B --> C["过度开具处方药物"] C --> D["药物副作用成为全球第三大死因"] end subgraph Proposed["倡导的生活方式干预模式"] E["'首先不造成伤害' 核心伦理"] --> F["首选非药物 / 生活方式干预"] F --> G["根治慢性病源头并减少系统浪费"] end ``` --- ### [04:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=295s) 从介入心脏病专家到生活方式医学的转变 被问及个人专业背景时，马尔霍特拉明确了自己的专业头衔是“心脏病学顾问医师”（Consultant Cardiologist）。他于 2001 年正式取得医学学位，经过两到三年的内科研究生规培后，选择进一步专攻心脏病学，并最终细分至“介入心脏病学”（Interventional Cardiology）。用通俗的话说，就是通过微创锁孔手术（Keyhole Heart Surgery）进行心血管疾病的治疗。 在大约 2014 至 2015 年之前，马尔霍特拉一直从事高强度的导管介入手术。此后，他逐渐转向更为全面的整合疗法，深入探究通过科学的生活方式改变来管理、甚至逆转心脏疾病的证据。直到 2019 年，他一直全职在英国国家医疗服务体系（NHS）中工作。他高度评价 NHS 对医生的严格训练，但同时也直言其工作负荷极其繁重：英国的人均医生配比在欧洲几乎处于垫底水平，夜班医生数量却居高不下。在其整个职业生涯中，马尔霍特拉在病房以及心导管室（进行冠状动脉造影及支架植入术）中接诊和治疗过的患者已多达数万人。 --- ### [06:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=418s) 专攻心脏的童年契机与全球心血管危机的现实 谈到为何选择专注于心脏这一器官而非其他医疗领域，马尔霍特拉分享了一段刻骨铭心的家庭悲剧。他出生在一个医生家庭，父母均为全科医生（GP）。他有一位患有唐氏综合征且伴有先天性微小心脏缺损的哥哥。在马尔霍特拉 11 岁、哥哥 13 岁生日后不久，哥哥患上了一次看似极普通的肠胃炎。然而仅仅过了 6 天，哥哥便突发呼吸急促并迅速恶化，送医后心搏骤停离世。 尸检结果显示，其心脏极度肿大，死因是“病毒性心肌炎”（Viral Myocarditis）。马尔霍特拉解释，这种疾病可能发生于任何人身上：在感染普通感冒后，大约万分之一到十万分之一的概率下，免疫系统会产生自身免疫反应，错误地猛烈攻击心脏组织；患上此病的人中有三分之一会迅速恶化甚至死亡。这一巨大的创伤深深印刻在他的少年记忆中，坚定了他走上预防和治疗心脏病道路的决心。 主持人提到，大众往往只关注体重、腹部脂肪、肌肉强壮等外在指标，由于从未亲眼见过自己的心脏或大脑，往往低估了心脏的决定性作用。马尔霍特拉对此表示赞同，并给出了一个宏观的严峻数据：心脏病至今依然是威胁人类健康的头号杀手，据官方预测，到 2030 年，全球每年死于心血管疾病的人数将攀升至惊人的 2,330 万人。 ### [09:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=580s) 心脏病的真正代价：过早死亡与被剥夺的生活质量 心脏病是欧洲男性过早死亡的首要原因，但过早离世只是这场健康危机的冰山一角。伴随心脏病而来的高发病率（Morbidity）往往摧毁了患者的生活质量：有些人因为冠状动脉阻塞产生剧烈胸痛而无法正常运动；另一些人则因血管堵塞或心肌梗死幸存后演变成心力衰竭，心脏的泵血功能严重受损，彻底丧失了享受日常生活和爱好的能力。这种生活质量的恶化与生命的提前终结一样具有破坏性。 与此同时，现代社会对健康存在严重的认知偏差。公众和健身文化往往过度聚焦于体型外表——比如更低的体脂率、硕大的肌肉线条，但这种执念反而掩盖了真正影响健康的核心根源。决定心血管健康的底层要素根本不是外表形象，而是减压、社会联结与基础营养等基础生活方式。谈及性别差异时，阿西姆·马霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）指出，女性的平均寿命通常比男性长约10年，且在年轻时心血管发病率较低；然而一旦进入绝经期，缺乏了激素等保护机制后，女性的心脏病发病率便会迅速追赶上来，成为同样致命的健康杀手。 - **欧洲男性头号杀手**：心脏病是导致欧洲男性过早死亡的最主要原因。 - **发病率与失能代价**：胸痛与心力衰竭极大削弱了患者日常运动与生活自理能力。 - **性别与绝经期风险**：女性心血管风险在绝经期后显著激增，逐渐抹平两性差距。 --- ### [11:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=693s) 被不堪重负的医疗体系背叛：母亲的悲剧性离世 阿西姆·马霍特拉医生的母亲曾是一名全科医生（GP），为英国国民医疗服务体系（NHS）倾注了25年的心血，却在2018年11月因脓毒症与心血管衰竭离世。马霍特拉沉痛地回忆，母亲多年来饱受严重的类风湿性关节炎与骨关节炎折磨，而这些慢性疾病在很大程度上植根于饮食习惯。她长期对超加工食品和高糖饮食上瘾，马霍特拉就是在摆满蛋糕和饼干的家庭环境中长大的，这甚至导致他早年也一度糖上瘾。 母亲的悲剧暴露出 NHS 在系统层面的系统性崩溃。由于生活方式与饮食相关慢性病患者激增，公立医疗系统常年处于极度重压之下，医护人员疲于奔命，基础的医疗安全防线荡然无存。当母亲因脊柱感染入院时，身体极度虚弱： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 母亲在NHS系统中的医疗失误过程 accDescr: 展示母亲因感染入院后，超声心动图被遗忘9天，最终导致严重心衰去世的过程 A["母亲因脊柱感染入院"] --> B["出现呼吸急促，安排超声心动图检查"] B --> C["医院负荷过载：检查结果被遗忘未读长达9天"] C --> D["马霍特拉查看报告：发现局部心肌无力（遗漏轻度心梗）"] D --> E["24小时内并发严重肺水肿，转入ICU昏迷去世"] ``` 尽管马霍特拉是知名心脏专科医生，其父亲也是当地备受敬重的中坚医生领袖，但在过载的医院体系中，没有一名医生去查阅并通报那份心脏扫描报告。直到9天后，报告才被随手转给马霍特拉，他一眼看出超声心动图显示心肌泵血功能局部受损：“你们漏掉了一次心肌梗死！”这次未被察觉的轻微心梗诱发了急性心力衰竭。短短24小时内，肺水肿迅速恶化，母亲转入重症监护室（ICU）陷入昏迷，不幸离世。这并非因为 NHS 的初衷有误，而是过度透支的体制使其丧失了最基本的患者救治能力。 --- ### [14:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=886s) 致命的心脏骤停：父亲的离奇猝死与救护车延误 悲剧在不到三年后的2021年7月再次降临。马霍特拉73岁的父亲身体向来硬朗，每周都打羽毛球，不仅在听取儿子的建议戒糖后很好地控制了高血压，而且极其注重健康饮食。2021年7月26日，父亲突然打来电话，称自己感到胸口不适。作为医生，马霍特拉深知“80%的临床诊断来自详尽的问诊沟通”，当父亲描述为“胸口中央沉重感，并向两肩放射”时，他立刻断定这是典型的心脏病发作，催促父亲立即呼叫救护车。 当时身在伦敦的马霍特拉准备乘火车赶回曼彻斯特，父亲则挂断电话去联系隔壁同为医生的邻居。然而，当马霍特拉洗完澡再次拨通电话时，传来的却是噩耗——邻居接起电话悲痛地喊道：“阿西姆，你父亲心脏骤停了，我们正在做心肺复苏（CPR）！”马霍特拉曾专门在《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）上撰文分析过急救数据，NHS 多年来的救护车平均响应时间为8分钟；只要在此窗口内赶到，患者极可能处于“可除颤心律”，除颤成功的生存率超过50%。 然而，现实残酷地击碎了这道希望防线： - **漫长的等待**：10分钟、20分钟过去，救护车杳无音信，直至超过30分钟后急救人员才抵达现场。 - **无法挽回的结局**：通过视频通话看到心电监护仪接入时，屏幕上已是一道毫无生机的直线（Flatline）。 - **极度的悲痛与费解**：马霍特拉痛彻心扉，发出了人生中从未有过的绝望尖叫。 在冷静下来后，巨大的疑团笼罩在马霍特拉心头：除了救护车严重延误导致丧失抢救机会外，平日如此自律、毫无心脏病家族史、仅有受控高血压的健康老人，为何会突发心脏骤停？尸检结果令人震惊：在心脏的三条主要冠状动脉中，竟然有两条存在严重的器质性狭窄闭塞。结合数年前父亲完全正常的心脏扫描影像，身为动脉粥样硬化逆转专家的马霍特拉意识到，在生命最后的短短两到三年内，父亲体内必定发生了某种极为反常且剧烈的病理突变。 ### [19:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1143s) 疑云重重与《Circulation》期刊上的震撼发现 阿西姆·马霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）谈到父亲心脏病情的急剧恶化时，心中始终存在巨大的困惑。父亲的冠状动脉堵塞发展异常迅速，这在医学上完全说不通。起初他怀疑这是否由极度严重的压力引起——虽然母亲在几年前去世，但父亲一直是个韧性极强的人，不仅担任英国医学会（British Medical Association）副主席，在疫情期间还作为常客在 BBC 电视节目上积极探讨防疫管理策略，社交生活与精神状态非常活跃，根本不是孤僻封闭的老人。这种生理指标的断崖式跌落完全无法用生活状态或情绪压力来解释。 就在马霍特拉百思不得其解之际，顶级心血管学术期刊《循环》（Circulation）刊登了一篇极具震撼力的论文摘要。作者是曾在美国心脏协会（American Heart Association）担任要职的高知名度心脏病学家史蒂文·冈德里（Dr Steven Gundry）。该研究追踪了数百名接种了两剂 mRNA 疫苗（辉瑞 Pfizer 或莫德纳 Moderna）的患者。数据表明，在打完疫苗的仅仅 8 周之内，患者未来 5 年内心脏病发作的基础风险预测值就从 11% 骤然飙升到了 25%。 马霍特拉向主持人史蒂夫（Steve Bartlett）直言，这种在短短两个月内发生的风险激增在临床上极其罕见。即便一个人从今天起每餐吃垃圾食品、每天抽 20 支烟并且彻底停止锻炼，其心血管风险也不可能在 8 周内飙升到这种程度。这一风险飙升的生理机制正是“炎症”。马霍特拉顿时意识到，心脏病本质上就是一种慢性炎症性疾病，若这项研究哪怕只有部分属实，就意味着新冠疫苗可能正在心脏周围诱发严重的血管炎症，加速心脏病变，而这或许正是父亲猝死背后的元凶。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 疫苗引发心血管炎症的发现与链条 accDescr: 展示马霍特拉从父亲异常猝死到发现文献及同行爆料的研究线索脉络。 subgraph Clinical["临床线索与文献"] A["父亲血管堵塞急剧恶化猝死"] --> B["生活方式/心理压力无法合理解释"] B --> C["Gundry发表于《Circulation》的摘要"] C --> D["mRNA疫苗接种8周内<br/>5年心脏病风险从11%升至25%"] end subgraph Whistleblower["同行内幕爆料"] E["顶尖机构权威心脏病学家来电"] --> F["高端心脏影像发现血管炎症<br/>（接种者显著，未接种者无）"] F --> G["项目负责人因担心药企资金链断裂<br/>下令封口并终止后续研究"] end Clinical --> H{"假说成立：疫苗诱发血管炎症并加速心脏病"} Whistleblower --> H ``` --- ### [21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1285s) 顶尖机构同行的深夜爆料与学术界被资助绑架的潜规则 虽然冈德里医生的数据引发了马霍特拉的警觉，但作为严谨的科研人员，他明白单个摘要尚不足以定论，只能作为一种假设。然而仅过了两周，一通出人意料的电话彻底打破了沉默。致电者是马霍特拉熟识的一位来自英国顶尖学术机构、极具学术声望和职业操守的心脏病专家。对方情绪异常激动，直接在电话中向他坦白了一起被强行掩盖的实验室发现。 该机构的研究团队在使用一种非常精密的高端心脏影像技术时意外观察到：接种了新冠疫苗的人群存在明显的动脉血管炎症，这极易诱发突发性心肌梗死；而在未接种疫苗的人群中，完全没有检测到这种炎症表象。然而，当这一重大发现摆在面前时，首席研究员却把团队成员召集到一起，神情严肃地下达了封口令：“各位，我必须明确一点：我们绝不能进一步深究这些发现，因为这可能会影响我们未来从制药行业获得的研发资金。” 马霍特拉在节目中发出了一声冷笑。他指出，公众听到这种内幕可能会觉得极其腐败和不可思议，但事实上，医药利益集团绑架科学研究的现象在医学界早已根深蒂固，只是长期以来无人敢于公开曝光。正是这通充满道德挣扎的同行爆料，让马霍特拉下定决心，无论面临多大阻力，自己都必须站出来公开提出质疑。 --- ### [22:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1356s) 突破思想禁锢与 GB News 专访引发的舆论海啸 在决定公开质疑之前，马霍特拉内心经历了强烈的思想斗争。他此前完全接受了官方的宣传口径，自己不仅主动接种了两剂疫苗，还曾登上英国主流电视节目《早安英国》（Good Morning Britain），极力为疫苗的安全性背书。当时他特别针对少数族裔社区进行宣传，甚至拉上了自己的好友——电影《我爱贝克汉姆》（Bend It Like Beckham）的知名导演顾伦德·查达哈（Gurinder Chadha）一同上镜发声，试图消除边缘化群体对政府和权威机构的不信任。 马霍特拉坦承，自己当时在很大程度上受到了主流叙事的“思想灌输”（indoctrinated），而承认自己犯错、颠覆自己公开宣扬过的观点是极为痛苦的。但他深信科学家的天职就是根据新证据修正立场。他深知亲政府的主流媒体如 BBC 绝不会报道这类质疑，于是联系了英国新闻台（GB News）的主持人好友亚历山德拉·菲利普斯（Alexandra Phillips），并在常规健康专栏中正式抛出了这一重磅炸弹。 在 GB News 的直播中，马霍特拉首次公开披露了内部举报者的爆料，列举了心血管炎症的学术数据，并将父亲的猝死与潜在的疫苗副作用联系在一起，呼吁国家疫苗委员会展开紧急调查。该专访在播出后迅速引发病毒式传播，在网络上斩获数百万播放量，影响力迅速蔓延至美国及全球。 --- ### [24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1481s) 奥密克戎浪潮下的强制令闹剧与推翻医护强制接种 到了 2021 年底，病毒变异株奥密克戎（Omicron）开始流行，来自南非发现者的最初报告表明，该变种的危害性并不比普通流感更高，且到 11 月时公众已普遍认识到疫苗根本无法阻止病毒感染和传播。然而令马霍特拉大为震惊的是，当时的英国卫生大臣萨吉德·贾维德（Sajid Javid）却反其道而行之，在议会强行推动对全体 NHS（英国国家医疗服务体系）医护人员实施疫苗强制接种令。马霍特拉强调，英国医学界传统上从未支持过强制用药，这一举措完全是一场违背科学与伦理的政治绑架。 恰在此刻，《i》报对导致马霍特拉父亲死亡的救护车长时间延误事件刊发了重磅调查报道。英格兰国民保健署的一位副首席护士私下向马霍特拉透露，政府和卫生部早在数月前就知晓救护车严重延误的危急状况，却选择对医护人员和公众进行系统性隐瞒。马霍特拉借此机会登上 BBC 新闻，不仅痛斥体制长期忽视大食品产业和大制药公司对医疗系统造成的沉重负担，更在直播中当场开炮： - 当时全英有 8 万至 10 万名 NHS 一线员工拒绝接种疫苗。 - 如果强推强制令，医疗系统将面临大规模解雇潮和彻底瘫痪。 - 他直言该政策“既不符合科学，也完全违背伦理道德”。 这场高调的舆论狙击战直接推动了英国政府最终撤回医护人员的强制接种法案，取得了关键胜利。 --- ### [27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1623s) 首次披露来自皇家内科医师学会的匿名威胁信 在成功迫使政府废除强制令的背后，马霍特拉遭遇了来自行业建制派的残酷打压。他在节目中首次公开了一段此前从未对外透露过的惊人经历：就在他做客 GB News、呼吁暂停疫苗接种并调查心脏损伤风险后不久，便收到了来自全球历史最悠久的医学机构——皇家内科医师学会（Royal College of Physicians, RCP）的正式官方信函。 信中冰冷地通知他，学会收到了多名资深会士（Fellows）的匿名投诉，指控他在 GB News 上的言论属于“散布反疫苗虚假信息”（spreading anti-vax misinformation）。学会勒令他在四周之内提交书面答辩，并在信中罗列了一系列可能对他施加的严厉纪律处分和行业制裁。 面对来自最顶尖医学机构的打压，马霍特拉深切地意识到，全球已有数十亿人接种了该疫苗，行业与公众被深度思想灌输。打破这种集体神话、揭露真相的阻力超乎想象，他即将面对的将是一场比以往职业生涯中任何战役都更加艰难的残酷战争。 ### [28:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1694s) 辉瑞与莫德纳临床试验数据的独立重分析：八百分之一的严重伤害率 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）坦言，要让公众和医学界正视疫苗的潜在风险，唯一的出路就是将研究发表在经过同行评审的顶级学术期刊上，再借由新闻媒体传播开来。为此，他整整耗费了九个月时间，全神贯注地扑在调查上——与两名辉瑞（Pfizer）内部举报人深入交谈，向免疫学与疫苗研发领域的顶尖科学家请教。作为一名在心脏病学领域拥有深厚专业底蕴的专科医生，当他把所有数据拼凑完整时，得出了一个明确而震动的结论：必须立即暂停使用这批疫苗。 更具决定性的是 2022 年夏季发表的一项重磅研究。当时，《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）副主编联合全球顶级流行病学家，依据加拿大卫生部与美国 FDA 官网公开的最新试验数据，对辉瑞和莫德纳（Moderna）最初用于获批上市的高质量随机对照临床试验进行了独立重分析。这篇发表在权威期刊《Vaccine》上的论文披露了一个令人震惊的事实：在试验最初期、即面对毒力最强的原始毒株阶段，接种疫苗导致严重不良反应（定义为导致住院、残疾或改变人生的重大事件）的几率高达八百分之一（1 in 800）。从全人群平均来看，接种者因疫苗遭受严重伤害的可能性，竟然高于其因感染新冠而住院的可能性。 面对主持人史蒂夫·巴特利特（Steve Bartlett）关于全年龄段差异的追问，马尔霍特拉强调，即便不细分年龄段，八百分之一的严重伤害率在公共卫生史上也是绝不可接受的红线。回溯历史，疫苗退市的标准远比这严苛得多：1976年的猪流感疫苗仅因导致十万分之一（1 in 100,000）的吉兰-巴雷综合征（Guillain-Barré syndrome，一种严重的致残性神经系统疾病）便在全球被紧急叫停；1999年的轮状病毒疫苗也仅因在一万名儿童中引发一例肠梗阻（1 in 10,000）而被勒令撤市。不仅如此，与该论文主作者密切合作的马尔霍特拉补充指出，在这批记录在案的严重伤害案例中，有整整 40% 与凝血紊乱直接挂钩，包括肺栓塞和心肌梗死等急性心血管事件。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 疫苗严重不良反应风险对比 accDescr: 对比新冠mRNA疫苗、轮状病毒疫苗与猪流感疫苗的严重伤害率阈值 subgraph Historical["历史停用疫苗的风险阈值"] A["1976年 猪流感疫苗<br/>1 / 100,000 引发吉兰-巴雷综合征"] B["1999年 轮状病毒疫苗<br/>1 / 10,000 引发儿童肠梗阻"] end subgraph CovidTrial["新冠 mRNA 疫苗试验重分析"] C["《Vaccine》重分析原始试验数据<br/>1 / 800 发生严重伤害事件<br/>（住院、致残或改变人生的事件）"] D["其中 40% 严重伤害<br/>涉及肺栓塞、心肌梗死等凝血与心血管异常"] end Historical -->|"风险高出数十至数百倍<br/>触及绝对安全红线"| CovidTrial ``` - **学术论文出处**：由《BMJ》资深编辑及权威流行病学家联合发表于顶级专业期刊《Vaccine》。 - **严重伤害（Serious Harm）定义**：符合导致住院治疗、造成永久残疾或发生危及生命的重大身体损害。 - **凝血与心血管关联**：独立分析显示，上述严重不良事件中约 40% 表现为肺栓塞、心肌梗死等凝血及血栓类疾患。 --- ### [31:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1887s) 现实世界数据：预防一例住院所需的接种人数（NNV） 为了在严重风险与预防效益之间建立科学的量化对比，史蒂夫进一步追问是否有按年龄划分的现实世界对照数据。马尔霍特拉指出，在很长一段时间里，全球几乎没有优质的现实数据能够将已接种者与未接种者的真实住院率按年龄层剥离剖析，直到 2023 年 1 月，英国成为全球唯一公布这一关键细分数据的国家。然而，这组针对两剂辉瑞疫苗在奥密克戎（Omicron）毒株流行期的官方数据，却揭示出不成比例的获益比。 数据表明，即便是风险最高的 70 岁以上老年群体，也平均需要为 2,500 人完成两剂接种，才能勉强预防 1 人因新冠住院。马尔霍特拉直言不讳地感叹：“在临床医学以及我用过的所有药物数据中，如果一种预防性药物需要 2,500 人用药才能让 1 人免于住院，这种疗效数字简直就是个天大的笑话。”而当年龄下探到 50 岁以下的中青年人群时，预防一例住院所需的接种人数更是暴增至数十万人。 对于致病力更强的德尔塔（Delta）变异株时期，马尔霍特拉在他此前发表的学术论文中曾整理过相关估算：在未完全校正社会经济状况等混杂因素的前提下，70 岁以上老年人预防一例住院的接种比约为 250 比 1。然而，当把这一微弱获益与试验本身所揭露的八百分之一严重伤害率横向对比时，尤其在重症风险极低的年轻人身上，疫苗的风险收益比已经完全颠倒。 - **奥密克戎期（70岁以上高危老人）**：两剂疫苗预防 1 人住院需接种约 2,500 人（NNV = 2,500）。 - **奥密克戎期（50岁以下中青年）**：预防 1 人住院所需的接种人数飙升至数十万人。 - **德尔塔期估算**：70 岁以上高危群体的获益比约为 250 比 1。 --- ### [33:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2034s) 驳斥英国心脏基金会：利益冲突与被忽视的心血管警讯 史蒂夫随后念出英国心脏基金会（British Heart Foundation, BHF）官网上的公开指引：该机构声称辉瑞和莫德纳疫苗引发心肌炎或心包炎的风险“非常低”，几率最高仅为万分之一（up to 1 in 10,000），且两种疫苗都是针对奥密克戎毒株的 mRNA 疫苗。面对这套主流官方叙事，马尔霍特拉断然表示完全无法认同。他毫不避讳地指出，英国心脏基金会虽然在其他心血管慈善领域做过许多有益的工作，但本质上依然属于深陷药企利益绑架的“建制圈子”（the establishment）。 他特别点名英国心脏基金会的核心顾问——牛津大学的罗里·柯林斯教授（Professor Rory Collins），直指其所在的研究机构长年接受来自制药工业数以亿计的资金赞助，过去在降脂药他汀（Statins）的安全性和疗效宣称上也展现出类似的严重利益偏见。在马尔霍特拉看来，英国心脏基金会最大的学术失职在于“选择性失明”：他们拒绝对《Vaccine》期刊顶级临床试验重分析所暴露的系统性伤害进行公开辩论，更刻意避开了多项极具分量的现实流行病学与尸检病理学证据。 其中最令他触目惊心的是发表在《自然》（Nature）子刊《Scientific Reports》上的一项以色列大型研究。该项研究明确证实：在 2021 年推进大规模接种期间，16 至 39 岁的年轻群体中，急性心肌梗死与心搏骤停（心脏骤停）的呼救发生率激增了 25%；极为关键的是，统计模型显示这一激增趋势与疫苗接种进度高度显著相关，却与新冠病毒感染本身毫无关联。马尔霍特拉批评主流机构连提都不敢提这些白纸黑字的研究成果，完全背离了循证医学应有的求真原则。 - **主流机构口径**：英国心脏基金会坚称心肌炎/心包炎发生率极低（最高约万分之一）。 - **学术与药企纽带**：马尔霍特拉指出其高级顾问来自与大型药企有数亿英镑资金往来的学术重镇。 - **《Nature》子刊以色列研究**：2021 年期间，16 至 39 岁青年人群突发心梗与心脏骤停急救案例同比激增 25%，数据指向与疫苗接种正相关，与病毒感染无统计学相关。 --- ### [36:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2205s) 疫情次生灾害 vs 疫苗副作用：生活方式恶化如何厘清？ 在听取了关于心脏疾病发病率上升的数据后，史蒂夫提出了一个极其敏锐而符合常理的质疑。他提到马尔霍特拉此前在畅销书《皮奥皮饮食》（The Pioppi Diet）中反复阐明的核心观点：长期的慢性压力、人际社交剥离、孤独感、心理抑郁以及缺乏运动等不良生活方式，本身就是诱发心血管退行性疾病的关键元凶。 史蒂夫指出，整个疫情期间的严苛封锁摧毁了正常的社会生活，无数人失业或被迫停职、经济前景渺茫、长期被隔离在家中无法与亲友拥抱聚会，全社会的心理疾病和焦虑发生率呈井喷式暴发。在如此极端的生活方式剧变与心理压力下，心脏健康恶化几乎是必然的。他向马尔霍特拉发问：医学研究究竟通过何种统计方法和科学手段，才能将封锁导致的心理与生活方式次生伤害，从疫苗本身的潜在心血管副作用中清晰剥离出来？ ### [37:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2255s) 超额死亡的元凶：黄卡不良反应报告与疫苗证据 在面对心血管疾病激增的讨论时，主持人 Steve 提到生活方式和封锁压力是否是主要推手。Aseem Malhotra 医生坦诚回应，在意识到疫苗的作用之前，自己最初也曾认为封锁压力、不良饮食以及就医延误是引发心脏病发作增加的最合理解释。这些因素确实起到了一定作用，但当深入审视高质量数据、病理生理机制以及死于突发心脏事件的人群画像（包括大量猝死的年轻人）时，单纯用生活方式根本无法自圆其说。从一名科学家的客观角度来看，疫苗是极其重大的促发因素；而从个人专业判断出发，毫无疑问，疫苗就是造成当前超额死亡的"首要推手（primary driver）"。 为了佐证这一观点，Malhotra 医生指出了极为关键的药物警戒（Pharmacovigilance）系统——即英国的黄卡计划（Yellow Card Scheme）。黄卡报告是由公众或医护人员填写的药物不良反应报告，填写流程繁琐，普通人绝不会仅仅因为打完疫苗有点低烧就大费周章地在线填报并提交给监管机构或医生，只有在感到身体严重不适时才会填报。在整个职业生涯中，他从未见过如此庞大规模的不良反应数据： - **阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）疫苗**：在接种了约 970 万剂次后，英国系统便记录了高达 80 万份黄卡不良反应报告（该疫苗最终被多国停用或撤回）。 - **严重不良事件比例**：根据相关数据估算，在这类主动填报的报告中，约有五分之一（20%）涉及严重伤害。 - **辉瑞（Pfizer）疫苗**：在接种了约 3000 万剂次后，累积了约 50 万份黄卡报告，相当于平均每 60 剂接种就产生一份报告。 尽管并非每份报告都涉及住院或死亡，但 Malhotra 医生强调，将所有流行病学与病理学证据拼凑在一起时，事实已经"明朗如白昼（as clear as day）"：在被彻底证伪之前，科学界本应将疫苗列为当前超额死亡的首要嫌疑因素，然而这一海量警示信号却被监管机构与主流舆论完全无视。 --- ### [39:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2397s) 疫苗是净正面还是净负面？新冠真实风险的重新评估 针对疫苗的整体价值，Steve 提出了一个长期困扰大众的疑问：如果不推出疫苗，幸存的人数究竟会更多还是更少？Steve 分享了身边的真实惨痛经历——自己旗下公司一位 CEO 的父亲原本体魄极为健壮，在感染新冠后迅速暴瘦如柴骨并濒临死亡，还有其他熟人不幸离世。那么从宏观视角来看，疫苗究竟有没有带来净收益？ Malhotra 医生给出了一个沉重而明确的答复：在掌握了目前所有已知证据后，他虽然缓慢而极其不情愿，但最终得出了定论——**新冠疫苗的推出对整个人口和社会造成了灾难性的“总体净负面效应”（catastrophic overall net negative effect）**。 在做出这一论断的同时，他做了严谨的声明：他绝不否认新冠病毒本身的破坏力。他自己的诊所里就有多位未接种疫苗却遭受严重 Long COVID（长新冠）折磨的患者。但回顾整个疫情发展轨迹： - 最严重、最具致命性的疫情冲击主要集中在 2020 年初期，并且不成比例地集中在高龄体弱人群中。 - 经过全球顶尖科学家对原始数据的重新复核，对于 70 岁以下的人群而言，早在疫情爆发之初，罹患严重伤害或死亡的风险本质上就处于普通季节性流感的同一数量级。 - Malhotra 医生坦承自己早期也曾在 2020 年 4 月的《欧洲科学家》（European Scientist）上撰文表达对该病毒的震惊与呼吁，当时纽约最繁忙急诊科的医生好友向他倾诉重症和医护同行染疫牺牲的惨况，这表明早期毒株对肥胖及高危人群确实极为凶险。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 新冠综合救治与疫苗干预考量 accDescr: 对比疫情初期治疗失当与2020年底病毒突变及疫苗引入时的数据考量 subgraph S1["疫情初期应对偏差 (2020年上半年)"] A["高危体弱老年人与重度肥胖患者受冲击最大"] --> B["ICU重症监护救治不当\n盲目插管/使用呼吸机造成医源性伤害"] B --> C["忽视生活方式干预与早期安全药物\n(如伊维菌素等安全机制)"] end subgraph S2["疫苗推出节点考量 (2020年底至2021年初)"] D["病毒自然变异致病力下降"] --> G["疫苗引入评估"] E["人群天然免疫力建立且稳固"] --> G F["药企统计陷阱\n相对风险降低 vs 绝对风险降低"] --> G end S1 -.-> |认知演进| S2 ``` --- ### [42:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2529s) 病毒源头与重症监护室的早期反思 谈及感染症状的独特性，Steve 回忆起自己染疫时的诡异经历：他平时极少吃药，但当时凌晨三点由于剧烈的背痛无法在床上平躺，只能整个人趴在冰冷的地板上，通过 Uber Eats 紧急外卖布洛芬止痛；其伴侣则完全丧失了嗅觉和味觉。大规模人口同时丧失嗅觉和味觉在历史上闻所未闻，因此听到人们将它简单归为“流感”时，直觉会强烈抗拒。 Malhotra 医生对此解释道，该病毒的临床表现确实非同寻常，而核心原因在于它大概率属于**人工工程制造的产物**。如今无论是在科学界还是公共认知中，几乎所有实质性证据都指向病毒来自武汉实验室泄露（Lab leak）。Steve 调侃道，实验室泄露在过去会被扣上“阴谋论”的帽子，如今却已成为共识；当初人们宁愿相信病毒源自生鲜海鲜市场，却刻意忽视当地恰恰坐落着从事冠状病毒改造的顶级实验室。Malhotra 医生提到，自己曾与最初公开发现这一机制的澳大利亚前沿科学家深入交流，实验室起源在机制上解释了为何病毒表现得如此怪异。 然而，在重症死亡的归因上，医疗干预方式的偏差也是酿成惨剧的关键： 1. **过度插管与通气**：在疫情初期，重症监护室（ITU/ICU）管理混乱，许多患者在尚不需要侵入性通气的情况下被过早插管并连上呼吸机，呼吸机本身的高压与并发症直接加速甚至导致了患者死亡。 2. **压制潜在早期药物**：对具有极高安全性记录的药物（如争议极大的伊维菌素 Ivermectin，其安全性甚至优于扑热息痛）持完全排斥态度。南非曾有一名医生在早期对包含大量老人在内的 14,000 名患者使用了相关方案，无一人因新冠死亡。 3. **忽略生活方式干预**：主流公共卫生完全没有教导大众如何改善代谢健康来强化免疫力。 到了 2020 年底至 2021 年初启动大规模疫苗接种时，整个客观环境已经彻底改变：病毒已历经多轮变异，毒性逐渐减弱；庞大的人群已经获得了极为强大且持久的天然免疫力（natural immunity）。 --- ### [45:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2706s) 药企的统计学戏法：相对风险与绝对风险的巨大鸿沟 在讨论疫苗最初被广泛宣称的“神奇保护力”时，Malhotra 医生揭穿了制药公司惯用的数字欺骗手段——**相对风险降低（Relative Risk Reduction, RRR）与绝对风险降低（Absolute Risk Reduction, ARR）的偷梁换柱**。制药巨头数十年如一日地在降胆固醇他汀类药物（statins）等各类处方药上重复这一统计伎俩，而在新冠疫苗推广时，辉瑞等机构宣称的“95% 保护率”正是基于这一逻辑。 | 评估维度 | 对照组（安慰剂） | 试验组（受试药物） | 统计指标解读 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **模拟受试人数** | 100 人（随访 5 年） | 100 人（随访 5 年） | 队列基数完全对等 | | **心脏病发作事件** | 2 人发作 | 1 人发作 | 实际减少了 1 次心脏病发作 | | **相对风险降低 (RRR)** | 基准 | **50%** | 将 2 例降至 1 例：`(2-1)/2 = 50%`。药企对外宣传的亮眼数据，具有极强误导性。 | | **绝对风险降低 (ARR)** | 基准 | **1%** | 治疗 100 个人仅能让 1 个人避免发病：`(2-1)/100 = 1%`。患者真正获得获益的实际概率。 | 通过这个生动的他汀类药物临床试验对照模型，Malhotra 医生拆解了医药营销的话术黑幕：当药企声称药物能够减少“50%的心脏病发作风险”或疫苗提供“95%的感染保护”时，公众往往误以为自己接种后能获得压倒性的免死金牌，但实际上其绝对效益可能微乎其微。一旦将真实的绝对获益数字向患者完整披露，人们对于服药和接种的决策将会发生彻底逆转。 ### [46:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2786s) 相对风险与绝对风险的数字游戏：疫苗试验数据的真实面貌 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）从临床中医生与患者的知情同意和共同决策切入，指出当患者询问某种药物时，他会坦诚告知：“如果你每天坚持遵医嘱服用这门药物，预防一次心脏病发作的几率大约是 1%。”然而，当这套标准被套用到最初的新冠疫苗临床试验时，情况却大相径庭。这些试验不仅存在大量结构性问题，而且从设计、执行到数据分析，全程都由制药公司一手包办。马尔霍特拉强调，医护群体和公众都需要破除一个巨大迷思——当今的医学知识很大程度上已经被商业利益所垄断和控制，但绝大多数人对此毫不知情。 药企在宣传试验结果时高调宣称获得了“95% 的相对风险降低（Relative Risk Reduction）”，宣称能预防感染，然而该试验不仅根本没有证明能降低新冠死亡率，其掩盖的关键数字更是绝对风险的微乎其微。马尔霍特拉指出，最初疫苗针对感染的“绝对风险降低（Absolute Risk Reduction）”仅有 0.84%。换算下来，需要为 119 个人接种疫苗，才能防止其中 1 人被感染（即需治人数 NNT 为 119）。普通公众从未被告知这一真相，没有人提醒他们“你接种后免于感染的几率其实还不到 1%”。 当史蒂夫·巴特利特（Steve Bartlett）追问疫苗是否至少降低了重症风险时，马尔霍特拉引用 2022 年至 2023 年初的回顾数据回应：针对后续毒株，需要为 2,500 人接种才能防止 1 例重症（即便对 70 岁以上高危人群而言早期效果可能稍好，但数字依然远低于公众的想象）。更严重的是，官方和媒体在宣传中不断“移动球门柱”：最初的口号绝非预防重症和死亡，而是信誓旦旦声称能够彻底阻断感染。例如美国 MSNBC 主持人瑞秋·玛多（Rachel Maddow）曾在 CNN 等主流媒体平台上极其情绪化地宣称“只要接种疫苗你就绝不会感染”，并将所有提出合理质疑的人扣上“否定科学（Science Denier）”的帽子，这种做法彻底背离了严谨的科学态度。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 临床试验数据解读与呈现差异 accDescr: 药企宣传的相对风险与真实绝对风险的对比流程图 subgraph PharmaPerspective["药企与主流媒体宣传口径"] A["临床试验原始结果"] --> B["宣称 95% 相对风险降低"] B --> C["口号：彻底阻断病毒感染与传播"] end subgraph RealityPerspective["实际临床绝对数据与知情同意"] A --> D["绝对风险降低仅为 0.84%"] D --> E["每接种 119 人仅能预防 1 例感染"] E --> F["后续预防重症需接种约 2,500 人"] end ``` - **相对风险降低（RRR）**：药企宣传重点，宣称防护效率达 95%。 - **绝对风险降低（ARR）**：真实临床防护效果仅 0.84%。 - **需接种预防人数（NNT）**：针对早期感染需接种 119 人才能预防 1 例感染；针对后续重症需接种约 2,500 人防 1 例重症。 - **缺失的知情同意**：公众在决策时从未获知绝对风险数据与药企主导试验的利益关联。 --- ### [48:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=2910s) 全面推广还是精准保护：如果没有全员接种，死亡人数会更少吗？ 面对史蒂夫抛出的核心问题——“如果当初完全不推出这款疫苗，死亡人数会不会比现在更少？”马尔霍特拉给出了肯定但极其严谨细致的剖析。他认为，如果在疫情暴发之初，疫苗仅针对 70 岁以上的老人或伴有多重基础疾病的极高危人群提供，那么在短期内“收益大于风险”的论点或许还勉强成立。然而，现实中存在两个无法忽视的致命漏洞。 首先是全过程缺乏真正的“充分知情同意”，官方不仅隐瞒了防护感染的微弱绝对获益，还掩盖了未知的潜在代价。其次，即使依据药企自身提交的原始试验数据进行独立重新分析，疫苗的严重不良反应发生率也高达约 1/800。马尔霍特拉直言，任何有良知的科学家或监管官员在看到 1/800 这个数字时都该立即叫停，因为这个风险概率实在是高得骇人。更为严峻的是，这还仅仅是短期观察到的数据，这款疫苗完全跳过了传统疫苗必须经历的 5 到 10 年长期安全性验证。他凭借多年临床沟通经验断言，如果当时将这些真实风险、绝对获益及未经验证的长期安全隐患一五一十摆在桌面上，绝大多数高龄老人也会理智地拒绝接种。 史蒂夫随后表达了对媒体主持人和公众决策者的理解与共情：在疫情初期医院人满为患、大量民众骤然离世的极度恐慌下，前方传递来尚未充分经受推敲的科学信息，急于寻找解药的主持人、NHS 官员和决策层只能抓救命稻草般信任并宣传权威信源，生怕任何犹豫造成更多伤亡，进而深陷其中难以转向。马尔霍特拉对此表示充分理解，承认自己最初也是盲信大流的其中一员。但他随即一针见血地指出问题根源不在于个人的道德缺陷，而在于整个体制的不透明——由于体制将巨额商业利益凌驾于公众健康之上，药企能够以“商业机密”为由锁死底层原始数据，使得从一开始就无法建立健康、透明的信息评估机制。 - **高危人群分层**：若仅局限在 70 岁以上或高风险群体，短期内存在效益大于风险的可能性。 - **严重伤害率阈值**：独立分析显示的严重不良反应发生率约为 1/800，远超一般公共卫生药物的安全容忍度。 - **审查与研发周期缺失**：正常疫苗需耗时 5 至 10 年完成安全审查，本次 mRNA 疫苗完全跳过了长期追踪环节。 --- ### [51:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3066s) 英国医学会高层的惊人对话：系统俘获与失控的游说力量 为了揭示体制盲从的荒诞真相，马尔霍特拉分享了一段极具冲击力的真实经历。2021 年 12 月，在他全力奔走呼吁废除医护人员强制接种疫苗政策期间，他与时任英国医学会（BMA）理事会主席昌德·纳格保罗（Chaand Nagpaul）进行了一次长达两小时的深入会谈。当时纳格保罗能够直接对话时任卫生大臣萨吉德·贾维德（Sajid Javid）。在马尔霍特拉条理分明地拆解了全部可用证据后，这位英国顶尖医学建制派领导人给出了令人不寒而栗的坦白：“阿西姆，在听完我们两个小时的谈话后，我发现似乎没有任何人像你一样对疫苗证据进行过如此透彻严谨的批判性评估。坦白讲，我身边大多数身处资深医疗决策和政策制定职位的建制派同行，他们关于疫苗获益与危害的信息，全都是看 BBC 新闻得来的。” 针对史蒂夫关于“政府层面的决策是否存在恶意阴谋”的追问，马尔霍特拉给出了非常坚决的否定回答：“绝对不是出于恶意。”他解释称，自己与跨党派的多位资深政客私交甚笃，例如工党前副党魁汤姆·沃森（Tom Watson）正是通过遵循他的“皮奥皮饮食法（Pioppi Diet）”成功减重 100 磅。这些政客本质上绝大多数都是想做实事的体面人，但他们处于极度被动的信息茧房中，日常被各种工业游说集团灌输带有偏向性的伪“专家意见”，这些被包装过的证据本质上都在服务食品巨头或大型跨国药企的利润。 马尔霍特拉回顾了自己多年前推动征收“含糖饮料税（Sugar Tax）”的艰难战役。当时他在《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）撰文呼吁，直到《每日邮报》头版刊出“糖是新时代的烟草”，直接触动了保守党政府的选民神经，才终于迫使时任卫生大臣杰里米·亨特（Jeremy Hunt）有所行动。调查显示，在当年的国家肥胖战略制定期间，政府官员与食品工业巨头的代表进行了多达 99 次闭门会议，却连一次公共卫生医生的意见都没听取。正因如此，当马尔霍特拉将医疗利益集团的系统性俘获与真实数据展示给那些前任政府内阁部长时，他们无不深感震惊。马尔霍特拉总结道，在危机伊始，从政客到平民都笼罩在对未知的巨大恐惧之中，正是这种恐惧让所有人丧失了批判思考的能力，最终让整个社会体系被商业利益深度俘获。 - **决策层信息源匮乏**：BMA 主席坦承多数医疗政策高官仅凭 BBC 等大众传媒了解疫苗的收益与风险。 - **决策机制的不对等性**：英国制定肥胖政策期间，政界与食品工业界代表会面多达 99 次，而与公共卫生医生会面次数为 0 次。 - **政治俘获机制**：并非恶意阴谋，而是政界人士在极度恐慌和信息不对称下，完全被受商业利益驱动的游说体系所蒙蔽。 ### [55:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3318s) 恐惧对批判性思维的阻碍与未来的信任危机 在身处恐惧状态时，人们很难保持清醒与理智。Dr. Aseem Malhotra 指出，疫情初期政府和公众普遍弥漫着巨大的恐惧，这种情绪从心理机制上直接抑制了人们进行批判性思考的能力，尽管当时营造这种恐惧的初衷或许并非出于恶意。针对这一现状，主持人提出担忧：如今公众对疫苗的怀疑情绪已空前高涨，如果未来真的暴发某种致命病毒，政府再次走上讲台呼吁所有人接种新型疫苗，是否还会有人愿意相信并接种？ Dr. Malhotra 坦言未来极有可能暴发新的大流行，而当前的信任崩塌确实是一大隐患。他强调，医学院向来给医生灌输的核心准则之一便是：一旦犯了错，必须坦诚地告知患者。只要患者确信医生的出发点是善意的，通常都愿意给予谅解。在疫苗推广的初期，他自己也曾因信息有限而支持过接种，但在新证据显现后，医学作为一门不断演进的科学，最重要的就是勇敢面对事实并公开认错（Mea Culpa）。 --- ### [57:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3429s) 情绪驱动的人性与“认错”后的舆论两难 对于公开认错的设想，主持人推演了一种极为现实的困境：假若当初宣称疫苗毫无副作用的科学家和官方现在改口承认错误，社交媒体立刻会陷入狂欢。那些因质疑疫苗而丢掉工作、遭受打压的人会高呼“我早就警告过你们”；极端的阴谋论者也将借此声势大振。人类并不是单靠冰冷的数据、图表和统计指标来做决策的生物，而是高度由情绪驱动的。一旦公众深感自己被欺骗与背叛，未来面对任何健康号召都会产生本能的抵触。 Dr. Malhotra 承认这一过程必定伴随着剧烈的情感反弹和阵痛。他分享了自己在伦敦公开反思疫苗问题时，曾遭到台下观众愤怒起哄与辱骂，指责他“也是同谋”、“是个骗子”。但他坚信，将错误掩盖在毯子下面只会让信任彻底烂透；唯一的出路是透明化，向大众坦承系统内部此前未被意识到的漏洞，并以此建立长久而真实的透明机制。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 医疗信任破裂与重建循环图 accDescr: 展示从过度承诺到信任崩溃，以及通过透明化重建信任的两条路径。 subgraph Failure["信任瓦解路径"] A["系统掩盖风险与缺陷"] --> B["过度绝对化宣称<br/>“完全无害/绝对安全”"] B --> C["真实副作用曝光<br/>与公众认知冲突"] C --> D["公众感觉遭受欺骗<br/>陷入极端恐慌与怀疑"] end subgraph Recovery["重建信任路径"] D --> E["公开承认错误<br/>坦陈系统漏洞"] E --> F["短期舆论反弹<br/>承受情绪宣泄与质疑"] F --> G["长久透明沟通<br/>逐步重建医患信任"] end ``` --- ### [59:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3580s) 区分传统疫苗与新型疫苗：概念混淆引发的连带伤害 讨论中明确划清了“传统疫苗”与“新型技术疫苗”的界限。Dr. Malhotra 表明自己始终是传统疫苗的坚定支持者，并在其学术论文中明确写道，传统疫苗每年在全球拯救约 400 万至 500 万人的生命。相比之下，传统疫苗经受了长达数十年的安全检验，公开数据显示其严重不良反应发生率大约仅为百万分之一到二百分之二。 然而，普通大众并不具备区分不同疫苗技术路线的专业背景。主持人形象地比喻道：这就像新闻里报道“狗咬伤了一定比例的人”，普通人不会去区分伤人的是吉娃娃还是德国牧羊犬，大家只会留下“狗很危险”的概括性恐惧。如今公众对“疫苗”这个词本身的信任已经被全面削弱，导致诸如 MMR（麻疹、腮腺炎和风疹疫苗）等传统儿科疫苗的接种率也遭遇断崖式下滑。主持人也提及自己童年在非洲感染严重疟疾、差点丢掉性命的经历，感叹现代医学预防手段的至关重要。Dr. Malhotra 则重申，医生绝不能低估公众的理解力，只要愿意耐心摆事实、讲清利弊与数据局限，患者是完全能够理性权衡的。 - 传统疫苗据估算每年挽救约 400 万至 500 万人的生命。 - 传统疫苗公开发表的严重危害发生率约为百万分之一至二百分之二。 - 信任赤字已波及儿童常规免疫，导致 MMR 等基础疫苗接种率受到负面冲击。 --- ### [01:02:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3720s) 权威分歧下的信息迷雾与利益冲突 面对普通公众“到底该信谁”的现实困惑，主持人指出了一个尖锐的冲突：一方面是爱丁堡大学临床心脏病学系主任 Marc Dweck 教授在媒体上公开批评 Dr. Malhotra 的言论“具有误导性且极其危险”，并强调绝大多数心脏病专家均不同意其观点；同时英国国家医疗服务体系（NHS）与药品和保健品监管局（MHRA）也坚称疫苗安全性经过了严格审查、副作用极罕见。面对两派权威各执一词、皆声称有数据支撑的局面，普通人往往感到无所适从。 Dr. Malhotra 回应表示，这类批评在很大程度上是主流媒体（如《卫报》）的一贯公关叙事套路。他进一步揭露了背后不为人知的利益纽带：首先，Dweck 教授在相关报道中并未披露其曾接受辉瑞（Pfizer）资金赞助的事实，这直接构成了潜在的利益冲突与立场偏见；其次，所谓代表官方客观立场的监管机构 MHRA，也并非真正意义上的完全独立机构，《英国医学杂志》（The BMJ）此前就针对其资金来源与独立性开展过深入调查。 ### [01:03:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3824s) 监管机构的利益冲突与同行不敢发声的“暴政” 阿西姆·马霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）谈及他在 2022 年夏季发表的研究，当时他在英国医学会（BMA, British Medical Association）年度大会上向包括 BMA 主席在内的领导层汇报了相关数据，在场高层无不目瞪口呆、难以置信。更令人震惊的事实是，英国药品和健康产品管理局（MHRA）有高达 86% 的运营资金直接来自大型制药公司（Big Pharma）。这种深度绑定的利益结构意味着监管机构根本不具备真正的独立性。马霍特拉指出，主流媒体（如《卫报》）之所以对他进行抹黑与人身攻击（“hatchet job”），目的就是摧毁他的专业信誉，以掩盖他在 BBC 节目中向数千万人揭露的医疗真相。 当主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）问及有批评者称“绝大多数心血管医生不同意你的观点”是否属实时，马霍特拉给出了截然相反的内部反馈。他表示，私底下遇到的每一位同行几乎都认可他的研究，甚至有同行当街拦住他透露：“虽然我们部门的心脏病专家绝不敢公开承认，但自从读了你的论文后，由于信任你的专业与人品，我们科室没有任何人再去打新冠疫苗补强针了。”马霍特拉感叹，体制内绝大多数医生由于惧怕职业报复而选择保持沉默。他引用心理学家乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）的名言指出，当真相在眼前而选择沉默时，“沉默本身就是谎言”（"silence is a lie"）；当所有人因恐惧而不敢发声时，药企利益集团的全面暴政便由此成型。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 药企资金链与医疗系统沉默机制 accDescr: 展示大型药企如何通过资金资助渗透监管机构与基层组织，进而压制医疗同行的公开表达。 subgraph CapitalInfluence ["资金渗透与制度依赖"] A["大型制药公司 (Big Pharma)"] -->|"提供 86% 预算资金"| B["药品监管机构 (MHRA)"] A -->|"资助基层权威组织"| C["疫苗强制令推手 (Mandates)"] end subgraph ProfessionalEnvironment ["专业领域与舆论环境"] B --> D["主流媒体与官方定调 (抹黑异见者)"] D --> E["一线心脏病专家与医生"] E -->|"心存恐惧、保持沉默"| F["集体沉默与系统性失真"] end ``` ### [01:06:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4010s) 逆风发声的痛苦与心理支撑 面对全方位的舆论攻击与同行冷眼，巴特利特询问马霍特拉在没有至亲陪伴的艰难时刻，内心的真实状态究竟如何。马霍特拉坦承自己承受着“极深的痛苦”（"very deep pain"）。这种痛苦并非源于外界对自己名誉的攻击，而是源于一种深刻的无力感——明明深知眼前正在发生人类历史上极其严重的医疗过失与企业犯罪，看到无数无辜者遭受严重健康损害甚至死亡，却无法看到体制出现足够的纠错和改进。他坦言自己天生对周围人的苦难极度敏感，这种共情心让他无法坐视不管。 然而，来自基层民众与同行的私下支持成了他坚持下去的精神燃料。他提到曾在街头偶遇一位知名老医生，对方情绪非常激动，当街握住他的手道谢。马霍特拉谦虚地回应自己只是传递真相的载体，对方却动容地说：“不，你做的事情极其勇敢，我全力支持你；这疫苗害死了我的一位同事，但我自己实在太害怕了，不敢公开站出来。”马霍特拉正是从甘地（Mahatma Gandhi）那句名句中汲取信念：“首先他们无视你，接着他们嘲笑你，然后他们打击你，最后你赢了。” - 绝大多数医护人员私下承认疫苗可能存在的风险，但迫于执业资格和机构审查的压力不敢公开发声。 - 尽管缺乏直系亲属在身边的即时情感支持，社交网络上数十万支持者以及街头偶遇同行的肯定构成了他抗压的重要支柱。 ### [01:08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4133s) 对疫苗收益与风险转变的完整定调 为了理清马霍特拉的全面观点，巴特利特对他对待疫苗的立场进行了系统归纳，马霍特拉对此做出了高度审慎且有层次的阐述： 1. **传统疫苗的价值**：传统疫苗是现代医学最伟大的成就之一，其对人类公共卫生的积极贡献毋庸置疑。 2. **新冠疫苗初期对高危人群的作用**：在疫情爆发初期，针对特定最脆弱的高危人群（如超高龄长者），尚有论据表明其在短期内减少重症和死亡方面具备一定的净收益。 3. **收益风险比发生逆转的转折点**：马霍特拉认为，疫苗的整体风险收益比在奥密克戎（Omicron）毒株出现前——甚至早在 2021 年夏天——就已经沦为“净负面”（net negative）。他以自己的父亲为例：其父在 2021 年夏季突发心脏骤停去世，年仅 73 岁，若单看新冠感染风险他确实属于高危群体，但马霍特拉强调：“如果预防一次新冠的代价是六个月后因突发心脏骤停而死，这种预防的意义何在？” 4. **全面强制接种与制度异化**：在获得数据显示疫苗无法阻断病毒传播且伴随严重副作用后，制药巨头（如辉瑞 Pfizer）仍出资游说美国基层权威组织推动疫苗强制令。马霍特拉引用法医心理学家的分析指出，现代大型跨国医药企业展现出“精神病态”（psychopathic）的制度特征——为了追逐巨额利润，对公众安全表现出麻木不仁的漠视、持续欺骗并操纵系统。 5. **次生灾害对心血管健康的叠加影响**：马霍特拉亦完全认同，疫情期间长期的封锁隔离、极度缺乏运动的生活方式、严重的精神压力、心理疾病以及被剥夺与亲人接触的机会，同样在心血管疾病的激增中扮演了一定角色。 ### [01:11:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4298s) 什么是真正的心脏病？ 在廓清疫苗话题后，对话切入心血管疾病的病理本质。巴特利特坦言，许多人（包括他自己，最近刚被医生告知胆固醇过高）每天都在使用“心脏病”和“心脏病发作”这些词汇，但极少有人真正理解它们的医学定义。 马霍特拉开始进行通俗而严谨的病理科普。在临床医学上，人们通常所说的“心脏病”，主要指的是**冠状动脉疾病**（Coronary Artery Disease, CAD）。这是指给心脏自身肌肉供应氧气和营养的血管发生了病变。这一病变的核心机制在于血管内部积聚了所谓的**斑块**（Plaque）。斑块的生成类似于水管内部逐渐结垢、管壁“起毛起皮”（furring），日积月累会导致原本通畅的血管内腔不断狭窄，从而阻碍血液的正常流通。 ### [01:12:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4342s) 心脏病发作的病理机制：从动脉斑块到心肌坏死 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉医生（Dr Aseem Malhotra）详细解释了动脉阻塞导致心脏病发作的生理全过程。动脉中的阻塞物是由免疫系统细胞和胆固醇共同构成的斑块。随着时间的推移，这种斑块可能会像一颗青春痘一样越长越大；但更危险的情况是，哪怕是一个很小的“痘痘”也可能突然破裂。一旦斑块破裂，其中的内容物直接暴露并接触到流动的血液，就会立即触发血液凝固反应，瞬间形成血栓。如果血栓彻底堵死整根动脉，流向对应区域心肌的血液就会被完全切断。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 心脏病发作与室颤发生机制 accDescr: 展示从动脉斑块破裂、血栓形成、心肌缺血坏死到室颤和心脏骤停的病理演变过程 subgraph Plaque["血管病变阶段"] A["胆固醇与免疫细胞<br/>形成动脉斑块"] --> B["斑块破裂<br/>类似粉刺爆裂"] B --> C["内容物接触血液<br/>迅速形成血栓"] end subgraph Infarction["心肌梗死阶段"] C --> D["彻底切断局部血流供应"] D --> E["心肌细胞缺氧缺养分<br/>15至20分钟内坏死结痂"] end subgraph Arrest["心律失常阶段（随机发生）"] E --> F["干扰心脏正常电信号通路"] F --> G["心室颤动（Ventricular Fibrillation）<br/>心脏呈无序抖动且无法泵血"] G --> H["除颤仪电击（约200焦耳）<br/>或长时间缺血导致心脏骤停死亡"] end ``` 冠状动脉的核心功能是为心肌持续供血，提供氧气与养分以维持其收缩跳动。一旦某根血管分支被堵塞数分钟，下游相应区域的心肌细胞就会因缺氧而开始死亡并留下永久性瘢疤。史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）随后用自己的话复述并梳理了这一逻辑：血管内壁产生堆积，由于多种诱因导致堆积物爆开，碎屑与反应物在血流中形成血栓堵死血管，从而导致部分心肌细胞缺氧死亡。马尔霍特拉医生确认了这一总结，并指出虽然细胞在缺血数分钟后就开始受损，但整个组织坏死结痂的过程大约在15到20分钟内发生。 ### [01:14:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4476s) 典型症状与室颤：为何小面积心梗也会引发猝死 谈及心脏病发作时的真实体感，马尔霍特拉医生描述了其教科书式的典型症状：患者胸骨正中会出现强烈的压迫感、沉重感或剧烈压榨性疼痛（Crushing heaviness or pain），这种疼痛往往会“放射”（Radiate）至颈部、下颌、双肩、背部，或者沿着左臂内侧向下蔓延。在经历这些剧痛的最初几分钟里，患者通常是完全清醒的。 此时患者面临的最大危险是心脏骤停（Cardiac arrest）。马尔霍特拉医生澄清道，虽然每个人在生命终结时心脏都会停跳，但心脏病发作是导致非衰老性过早猝死的最常见诱因之一。更致命的是，心电紊乱的发生具有相当大的随机性： - 它并不严格取决于心肌受损面积的大小，即使只是非常微小的心肌区域坏死，同样可能扰乱维持心脏规整节律的心脏传导系统。 - 正常的泵血电路被切断后，原本强力收缩的心脏会突然陷入紊乱无序的颤抖，这种致命心律失常被称为“心室颤动”（Ventricular Fibrillation, VF）。 - 在电影或医院心电监护仪上，室颤表现为杂乱无章的波形。这属于“可电击复律心律”（Shockable rhythm），通常需要使用除颤仪释放约200焦耳（200 Joules）的电击能量，尝试重启并恢复窦性心律。 - 如果室颤持续过久未能复律——就像马尔霍特拉医生自己父亲去世时经历的二三十分钟缺血那样——心脏最终会彻底失去活动能力，导致患者死亡。 巴特利特随后引用了一组触目惊心的流行病学数据：在英国，每8名男性和每14名女性中就有1人终生因冠心病丧生；近50%的美国成年人患有某种形式的心脏疾病；而在疫情暴发前的2019年，英国平均每周就有12名儿童死于心脏骤停。面对“如果有什么东西会杀死我，大概率就是它”的严峻现实，巴特利特半开玩笑地问道：“那吃点他汀类药物（Statins）怎么样？” ### [01:17:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4638s) 胆固醇迷思与被误解的“坏胆固醇”LDL 巴特利特分享了自己三天前刚拿到的体检化验单：医生一方面指出他严重缺乏维生素D（因为整天呆在室内），另一方面神情严肃地告诫他“坏胆固醇过高，必须马上降下来”。巴特利特的父亲也在长期服用他汀，全球更有约2亿人正在使用此类降脂药物。巴特利特就此向马尔霍特拉医生请教：所谓的“坏胆固醇”究竟意味着什么？我们是否真的必须不惜一切代价把它降下去？ 马尔霍特拉医生回顾了数十年来心血管医学的发展历程，指出整个传统主流医学界长期以来都把“尽可能压低低密度脂蛋白（LDL，即俗称的坏胆固醇）”作为防治心脏病的核心教条。这种教条主要根源于早期的流行病学研究（例如始于1948年并随访三十余年的弗雷明汉心脏研究）： - 早期研究确实观察到，在总胆固醇极高的群体中，心脏病发病率显著上升；同时，总胆固醇低于4 mmol/L、LDL低于2 mmol/L的人群极少患心脏病。 - 现行临床指南通常将血液中LDL超过3 mmol/L直接标记为异常偏高（即化验单上的红字）。 - 这种观察催生了一种线性推论：既然超高胆固醇（如总胆固醇超过10 mmol/L、LDL达到7至8 mmol/L）危险，而极低胆固醇安全，那么“胆固醇越低越好”便成了制药行业和医学指南推导出的逻辑，进而掀起了轰轰烈烈的降脂药研发狂潮。 然而，马尔霍特拉医生指出，这一推论忽略了最基本的生物学事实：人体内约80%的胆固醇是由基因决定的内源性合成。胆固醇绝非毒药，而是维系生命不可或缺的底层分子——没有它人类根本无法存活。它是细胞膜结构完整的基石，是合成类固醇激素的原料，并在人体免疫防御机制中发挥着关键功能。尽管饮食调整能够改善血脂谱系（如降低甘油三酯、提升高密度脂蛋白HDL），但个体的基础LDL水平主要受遗传控制。早期研究中那些极高胆固醇且患病的人群，很可能是某些未被测量的潜在病理因素在起作用，而盲目将胆固醇本身定性为罪魁祸首，在医学逻辑上存在根本性的误判。 ### [01:21:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4867s) “笨蛋，问题是胆固醇”：医学界的教条与荒谬推论 多年以来，主流医学界一直灌输一种线性的绝对教条：低密度脂蛋白（LDL）越低，患心脏病的几率就越小。阿西姆·马尔霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）指出，某些人血液中极高的 LDL 实际上源于某种潜在的基因缺陷，正是该基因问题同时引发了心脏病和高胆固醇；而很多低胆固醇的人同样会罹患心脏病。为了将降胆固醇理念推向极致并推动他汀类药物（statins）的普及，美国著名心血管专家、曾任《美国心脏病学杂志》（American Journal of Cardiology）主编的威廉·罗伯茨（William Roberts）在 2011 年发表了一篇题为《笨蛋，问题是胆固醇》（It's the cholesterol, stupid）的述评。他在文中甚至写道：一个人即便肥胖、患有糖尿病、久坐不动且长期吸烟，但只要总胆固醇和 LDL 足够低，就绝不会得心脏病。马尔霍特拉在自己的书中引用了这句话，并在访谈中直接反问史蒂芬：“这听起来合理吗？”史蒂芬当即摇头表示这听起来极其荒谬。 - **威廉·罗伯茨的极端论断**：声称即便兼具“肥胖、糖尿病、久坐、吸烟”四大恶习，只要胆固醇降得足够低，就不会罹患心脏病。 - **中间人群的脱节**：除了极端遗传病患外，对于全人群中 95% 的普通人来说，胆固醇高低与是否会发生心血管疾病之间根本不存在这种线性相关性。 --- ### [01:22:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4949s) 他汀药物的真正机制：消炎与抗凝，而非单纯降脂 马尔霍特拉早在 2010 年前后就开始深入审视这段历史。在 20 世纪 90 年代末，发现家族性高胆固醇血症（Familial Hypercholesterolemia，发病率约 1/250，患者胆固醇极高）与心脏病关联并荣获诺贝尔奖的科学家们曾乐观预测：由于能显著降低胆固醇的他汀类药物问世，人类到 21 世纪初将彻底根除心脏病。然而大众鲜少被告知的是，在他汀类药物走向全球 2 亿患者之前，医学界曾针对多款非他汀类降脂药开展了无数临床试验。那些试验中，患者的胆固醇虽然被大幅拉低，但数年随访下来，心脏病发作和死亡率却完全没有任何下降。直到他汀类药物横空出世，才首次观察到了心血管获益。 之所以出现这种反差，关键在于他汀类药物具有超越“降 LDL”之外的多效性（pleiotropic properties）：它们具备显著的**抗炎**和**抗血栓（抗凝）**作用。现代心血管医学已经公认，心脏病本质上是慢性炎症介导的血栓堵塞问题。因此，他汀类药物带来的边际益处，极可能是因为其抑制了血管炎症与血栓形成，而非单纯把胆固醇指标压低。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 他汀类药物作用机制与早期降脂试验对比 accDescr: 对比早期降脂药与他汀类药物的实际临床效果与真正机制 subgraph EarlyDrugs["早期非他汀降脂药物"] A["强力降低 LDL 胆固醇"] --> B["心脏病发作与死亡率：无任何改善"] end subgraph Statins["他汀类药物 (Statins)"] C["降低 LDL 胆固醇"] D["抗炎作用 (Anti-inflammatory)"] E["抗血栓 / 抗凝作用 (Anti-clotting)"] D & E --> F["减少心血管事件"] style F fill:#d4edda,stroke:#28a745 style B fill:#f8d7da,stroke:#dc3545 end ``` --- ### [01:25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5100s) 一级预防的真实数据与被低估的药物副作用 谈及他汀类药物的具体获益时，马尔霍特拉特别强调，即便完全采纳药企资助且原始数据从未公开接受独立核查的临床试验（这些数据本身很可能存在夸大），其对普通人的益处也极其有限。如果一个人从未发生过心肌梗死，也没有严重的冠脉狭窄症状（即所谓“一级预防”人群），那么在连续每天服用他汀长达 5 年的前提下，其预防一次非致命性心脏病发作或非致残性中风的最佳几率仅为 **1/100**（即 1% 的获益可能），而在延长寿命方面的获益则是**整整 0 天**。马尔霍特拉指出，当医生以公开透明的方式将这组“百里挑一”的胜率摆在患者面前时，超过三分之二的患者都会当场拒绝用药。 与此同时，他汀带来的生活质量代价却被严重掩盖。大量的临床观察表明，约有 20%（五分之一）的用药者会遭遇严重影响生活质量的副作用，常见表现包括极度疲劳、肌肉酸痛、勃起功能障碍以及睡眠障碍。好在只要停药或减量，这些症状通常在数周内即可逆转。2013 年，马尔霍特拉与哈佛大学学者在《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）同期发表文章提出这一高达 20% 的不良反应发生率后，立即遭到了牛津大学受药企资助的研究群体的猛烈抨击，对方指责他们“危言耸听会导致患者停药死亡”；但马尔霍特拉反驳道，对于本就无生存期获益的低风险人群而言，停药根本谈不上增加死亡风险。 - **一级预防（未发生过心梗）5 年随访数据**： - 预防非致命性心梗或非致残性中风的概率：**1/100**。 - 延长总体寿命的天数：**0 天**。 - **副作用影响**：疲劳、肌肉钝痛、性功能障碍、失眠；发生率约为 **1/5（20%）**。 --- ### [01:27:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5246s) 二级预防的残酷真相：五年换来四天寿命 对于已经发生过心梗的高风险患者（即“二级预防”），他汀类药物的表现略好，但绝对收益依然远低于公众的想象。如果心梗幸存者风雨无阻地坚持服药 5 年，预防下一次心肌梗死发作的概率是 **1/39**（约 2.5%），而真正因该药物延长寿命的几率仅为 **1/83**（约 1.2%）。 为了直观展现公众预期与科学数据之间的巨大鸿沟，马尔霍特拉在现场让史蒂芬设身处地地设想：如果你刚从心梗中死里逃生，医生让你吃 5 年他汀，你期望它能为你延长多久的寿命？史蒂芬回答道，大概至少能多活 1 年（约增加 20% 到 25% 的生存时间）。然而，马尔霍特拉揭晓了即便根据药企资助的所有临床试验汇总出的无可争议的真实数据：整整 5 年的坚持用药，换来的平均寿命延长仅仅只有 **4.2 天**。即便乐观地线性外推，服用 10 年也不过延长 8 天，服用 20 年仅延长 16 天左右。马尔霍特拉坦言，自己不仅是一名心血管医生，也是未来的潜在患者；行医的核心在于患者知情权，医生必须告诉大众冰冷数据背后的全貌，让每个人真正了解自己为了这短短几天的潜在收益究竟付出了怎样的生活质量代价。 - **二级预防（心梗幸存者）服药 5 年数据**： - 预防再次心梗的几率：**1/39**。 - 延长生命的几率：**1/83**。 - 综合平均寿命延长：仅 **4.2 天**。 ### [01:29:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5363s) 生活方式与心脏病的根本诱因：胰岛素抵抗 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉医生（Dr Aseem Malhotra）向史蒂夫·巴特利特（Steve Bartlett）澄清，他并非一概反对所有人服用他汀类药物（statins）。很多人抱有一种“彩票心态”，认为只要没出现副作用，吃药也无妨，对此他完全理解。然而，现代医学往往忽视了一个至关重要的核心问题：是否存在一种既没有任何副作用、能显著提高生活质量，又能真正预防甚至逆转心脏病的替代方案？答案显而易见——正是生活方式的改变。全球高达 80% 的心脏病都与环境和生活习惯息息相关。 马尔霍特拉医生指出，导致心脏病的最关键生物学现象在学界毫无争议，却极少被大众媒体或医疗体系重点宣传，原因在于“这背后没有商业市场，因为健康的生活方式无法被商品化打包出售”。这一核心元凶便是**胰岛素抵抗（insulin resistance）**。胰岛素是由胰腺分泌的重要激素，用以维持血糖稳定以确保细胞正常运作。但当体内胰岛素长期处于异常高位，或是细胞对其产生抗性时，就会直接诱发动脉粥样硬化、形成斑块并导致血管狭窄堵塞。他强调，在全球范围内，大约 50% 的心脏病病例可以直接归咎于不良饮食。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 饮食诱发心脏病的病理机制 accDescr: 展示摄入添加糖导致血糖飙升、慢性胰岛素抵抗并最终形成动脉粥样硬化斑块的过程 subgraph Diet["不良饮食摄入"] A["高糖 / 游离糖摄入<br/>(含糖饮料、果汁、精制淀粉)"] end subgraph Response["机体代谢反应"] B["血糖剧烈飙升 (Spike)"] C["胰腺过量分泌胰岛素"] D["长期高胰岛素血症<br/>与胰岛素抵抗"] end subgraph Pathology["心血管病理变化"] E["动脉血管内皮损伤与慢性炎症"] F["动脉硬化斑块形成 (Plaques)"] G["心脏病与动脉狭窄堵塞"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F F --> G ``` ### [01:31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5476s) 白糖演示：人体究竟需要多少摄入糖？ 为了具象化糖的危害，史蒂夫在演播室桌上拿出一包白糖，甚至幽默地调侃道：“我们把包装上的品牌贴住了，因为他们没给赞助费；不过要是有糖业品牌愿意投赞助，随时欢迎联系。”随后他向医生抛出一个根本问题：人体为了生存和维持健康，究竟需要多少糖？马尔霍特拉医生的回答干脆利落：“**零（Zero）**。人体对于所谓的添加糖或精制白糖，不存在任何营养学层面的需求。” 马尔霍特拉医生解释，人体运作确实需要葡萄糖（glucose），但完全不需要通过饮食直接摄入现成的葡萄糖或蔗糖。在生酮饮食（ketogenic diet）等低碳水模式下，人们哪怕戒绝淀粉，肝脏也能通过糖异生作用利用脂肪和蛋白质自行合成所需葡萄糖。精制糖除了提供纯粹的热量空卡路里外，没有任何微量营养素价值。 针对添加糖（added sugar）的摄入限制，马尔霍特拉医生结合自己参与推动的世界卫生组织（WHO）指南修改，现场进行了茶匙计量演示： - **人体生理最低需求量**：0 克（0 茶匙）。 - **世界卫生组织（WHO）建议的成年人每日摄入上限**：**6 茶匙**（现场数了 6 勺倒入玻璃杯中，约 24 克；超过该阈值，健康损伤便开始成倍累积）。 - **美国农业部（USDA）建议 4 至 8 岁儿童每日上限**：**3 茶匙**（儿童群体对高糖危害尤为脆弱）。 - **一罐常见 330 毫升含糖汽水**：约含有 **9 茶匙糖**（约 36 克，每茶匙约 4 克），仅一罐就彻底击穿全天安全上限，更不用提电影院里动辄半升或一升的巨杯碳酸饮料。 - **一块标准普通巧克力排块**：所含糖量与一罐汽水大致相当（约 8–9 茶匙）。 ### [01:34:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5670s) 隐形游离糖、血糖震荡与食品工业的消费陷阱 史蒂夫随后要求直观对比普通人一天的真实糖摄入量。马尔霍特拉医生在另一只玻璃杯中装入了至少 **20 茶匙** 的白糖，杯中堆积如山的糖分令人触目惊心，史蒂夫忍不住直呼“太恶心了（disgusting）”。马尔霍特拉医生指出，英美两国普通人日常摄入的添加糖普遍在 20 茶匙以上，甚至远高于这个数字。许多人以为自己没喝汽水、没吃蛋糕饼干就远离了糖，但实际上这些糖大量潜藏在打着“低脂（low-fat）”、“健康”标签的酸奶、酱料和工业包装食品中。 马尔霍特拉医生进一步拆解了“游离糖（free sugars）”的概念与代谢机制： - **游离糖与整果的区别**：游离糖不仅涵盖工业添加糖，还包括果汁、蜂蜜和糖浆。以鲜榨橙汁为例，一杯橙汁往往浓缩了整整 6 颗橙子的糖分。常人很难一口气吃下 6 颗完整橙子，且完整水果富含膳食纤维，能够延缓肠道对葡萄糖和果糖的吸收。 - **血糖峰值与饥饿循环**：缺乏纤维包裹的液体糖或精制糖进入体内后，会导致血糖闪电式飙升（spike），刺激胰岛素超量分泌；随后血糖迅速暴跌（crash），引发剧烈的饥饿感与食欲，驱使人继续进食。 - **食品工业的商业操纵**：在美国超市售卖的包装食品中，高达 70% 都被蓄意添加了糖。食品巨头深知糖能极大提升食物的适口性（palatability）并诱发成瘾性过度消费，其目标是卖出更多产品实现利润最大化，而非维护消费者的代谢健康。 ### [01:37:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5820s) 超加工食品是“新烟草”：借鉴烟草税重塑公众健康 面对这一严峻的公共卫生危机，史蒂夫询问在社会层面上是否有解决之道。马尔霍特拉医生给出了审慎乐观的预期，并以英国过去半个世纪控烟的成功历程作为参照范式。他提到，1970 年英国成年人中有超过 50% 是烟民，而如今这一比例已大幅下降至约 17%。促成这一历史性转变的关键固然包含健康宣教，但最强有力的杀手锏其实是**烟草重税（taxation）**。征税不仅直接提高了购买门槛、抑制了消费量，更在全社会范围内树立起“吸烟确凿有害健康”的强烈共识。 同样的逻辑正在含糖饮料税（soft drinks industry levy）上发挥效力，但马尔霍特拉医生指出，接下来的主战场必须转向**超加工食品（Ultra-Processed Foods, UPFs）**。他在多部著作与专栏中反复大声呼吁：整个社会必须将超加工食品视同“新时代的烟草”予以严加规制。现今，英国人日常摄入热量中有超过 50% 来自超加工食品，而在美国这一比例甚至突破了 60%。这类食品的典型特征是工业化流水线包装、充斥着日常厨房根本不会使用的工业添加剂与过量添加糖，正悄无声息地吞噬着公众的代谢与心血管健康。 ### [01:38:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5905s) 超加工食品的泛滥与医院的讽刺现状 如果一种食品含有超过五种配料，并且通常含有添加剂和防腐剂，那它基本就属于超加工食品（Ultra-processed food），最好尽量远离。现有的全部科学研究都指向同一个明确方向：目前至少有 32 种不同的急慢性疾病与摄入超加工食品直接相关。Dr Aseem Malhotra 指出，这本质上是一个整体环境问题——我们所处的现代食物环境已被这种垃圾食品彻底浸透。 甚至连本该救死扶伤的医院系统也深陷其中。Dr Malhotra 回忆起自己参与的第一个公众倡议活动，就是试图把这类垃圾食品从医院彻底清理出去。当时他就震惊地意识到一种荒谬的现实：医院一边在收治和治疗大量因肥胖引发疾病的患者，另一边却在病房和食堂里给他们提供高度加工的垃圾食品；更讽刺的是，英国国民医疗服务体系（NHS）内部竟然有高达 50% 的医护人员处于超重或肥胖状态。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代食物环境与代谢恶化链路 accDescr: 超加工食品渗透环境导致代谢健康崩溃并推高心脏病风险 subgraph ENV["环境失衡"] A["超加工食品泛滥<br/>(>5种成分/添加剂/防腐剂)"] B["制度性盲区<br/>(医院食堂供应垃圾食品/50%医护超重)"] end subgraph RISK["代谢异常"] C["胰岛素抵抗与代谢综合征<br/>(5项指标中异常≥3项)"] D["慢性低度炎症与高凝血状态"] end subgraph OUTCOME["临床后果"] E["心血管疾病突发<br/>(心肌梗死与过早死亡)"] end A --> C B --> A C --> D D --> E ``` ### [01:39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5954s) 代谢综合征与心血管疾病的真实危机 当被问及长期摄入高糖和超加工食品导致心脏病的具体几率时，Dr Malhotra 表示虽然很难给出一个精确的单一个体发生率，但毫无疑问它会大幅提升心血管疾病和 2 型糖尿病的风险。在美国，目前约有三分之一到二分之一的成年人处于糖尿病前期（pre-diabetic）。 要评估个人层面的胰岛素抵抗，最核心的依据就是“代谢健康”（Metabolic Health）的五项简易测量指标： - **腰围（Waist circumference）**超标。 - **空腹甘油三酯（Blood triglycerides）**高于 1.7 mmol/L。 - **高密度脂蛋白胆固醇（HDL，即“好胆固醇”）**低于 1.0 mmol/L。 - **处于糖尿病前期**，即糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）超过 5.7%。 - **处于高血压前期或高血压**，即平均血压高于 120/80 mmHg。 如果上述五项指标中有三项异常，在医学上就被定义为“代谢综合征”（Metabolic Syndrome）。这是导致心脏病风险最高的临床病态，因突发心肌梗死住院的患者中，至少有 50% 以上符合代谢综合征的诊断。令人触目惊心的是，全美仅有八分之一（约 12%）的成年人能在这五项指标上全部保持正常，而在 20 至 40 岁的青壮年群体中，全部达标的比例也仅有四分之一。 全球每年约有 2,000 万人死于心血管疾病。据科学估算，只要在一年内适度转变大众的饮食结构——彻底戒绝超加工食品，增加坚果、种子、深海多脂鱼类以及新鲜蔬菜和水果的摄入——全球心血管疾病死亡人数就能在一年之内直接减半，从 2,000 万锐减至 1,000 万。当主持人打趣说“那你作为心脏病医生可就要失业了”时，Dr Malhotra 回应道，这并不会让医生无事可做，还有另外 1,000 万人需要救治；饮食改变的核心价值在于推迟发病年龄，让原本可能在 65 岁因急性心梗过早离世的人健康活到 85 岁，将医疗重心转向提升老年时期的生命质量与健康寿命。 ### [01:41:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6114s) 隐形杀手：慢性压力与大脑杏仁核的生化机制 Dr Malhotra 强调，慢性压力是当今社会完全没有得到严肃对待的“隐形杀手”。传统观念中，吸烟、2 型糖尿病和高血压被视作心脏病的三大主要诱因，但科学数据显示，中度以上的慢性压力对心血管造成的破坏力，与长期吸烟、高血压或 2 型糖尿病完全平起平坐。几乎所有被送进急诊的心脏病患者，在发病前的数年中都长期处于极高的压力负荷之下。 从人类进化的角度来看，急性压力本是保命机制：当原始人遭遇剑齿虎追击时，身体会本能地大量分泌促凝血因子和炎症因子，以便在撕咬受伤时防止失血过多而亡。然而在现代社会，长期的工作和人际关系压力演变成了持续性的“慢性压力”，导致人体内部长期处于低度慢性炎症和高凝血因子的危险状态。发表在《柳叶刀》（The Lancet）上的一项里程碑式研究为此提供了确凿证据： - 研究人员对年轻健康人群的大脑进行了功能性磁共振成像（MRI）扫描，并结合主观压力评估量表进行跟踪。 - 扫描清楚显示，主观压力得分与大脑的情感中枢——杏仁核（Amygdala）的异常激活呈现完美相关性。 - 杏仁核的高度活跃进而驱动血液中凝血因子与炎症标志物飙升，最终直接与随访期间心肌梗死的发病率呈精准正相关。 ### [01:44:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6250s) 印度阿布山研究：逆转动脉硬化与医学利益阻碍 既然压力是导致血管堵塞的核心物理推手，Dr Malhotra 便在临床中大力推行呼吸练习与冥想。他在拍摄医疗纪录片时深入探访了印度北部阿布山（Mount Abu）的一家医院。那里的印度心脏病专家通过一套生活方式干预方案，长达 20 多年成功实现了“逆转冠状动脉阻塞”： - **干预方案**：针对因宗教信仰、经济原因或拒绝接受支架/搭桥手术的冠心病患者（其冠状动脉狭窄程度普遍在 50% 至 70% 之间），医生让他们严格执行高纤维素食饮食、每天两次 30 分钟的快走，以及每天 40 分钟的“王瑜伽冥想”（Raj Yoga Meditation）。这种冥想融合了深层呼吸调节与心智转化，重点化解内心的愤怒与怨念。 - **临床结果**：在严格执行该方案 2 年后，患者复查冠状动脉造影（Angiogram），血管狭窄程度平均逆转了 20%（例如 70% 的狭窄缩小至 50%，50% 的狭窄缩小至 30%）。这在传统主流心脏病学中被普遍斥为“不可能发生的奇迹”。 - **独立因素分析**：当该医生深入解构饮食、运动与冥想的数据时，发现逆转动脉狭窄的唯一独立预测因子（Independent factor），正是那“每天 40 分钟的王瑜伽冥想”。 令人唏嘘的是，当 Dr Malhotra 询问为何该医生早期完成的高质量随机对照试验（RCT）未能在顶级期刊发表时，对方苦笑着透露了学术界背后的商业现实：他曾邀请美国某权威心脏病协会的资深专家赴印度实地审查数据。那些专家私下对结果叹为观止，但言语间却委婉点明无法协助发表或推广这一成果，因为“这会直接摧毁我们庞大的心脏支架商业市场”（affect our stent business）。 这一内幕与 Dr Malhotra 自身在 2011 年的经历遥相呼应。当时他在接触名厨 Jamie Oliver 后，在《观察家报》（The Observer）上发表了他人生第一篇主流媒体专栏，题目正是直击医疗体制盲点的《我修补心脏，却眼睁睁看着我们的医院给我的病人们供应垃圾食品》（"I mend hearts then I see our hospitals serve junk food to my patients"）。 ### [01:47:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6430s) 医疗体制的利益绑定与心脏病预防难题 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉医生（Dr Aseem Malhotra）回顾了自己早年的经历：当时他还只是一名初级医生，满怀热情地主张必须通过改善饮食来解决肥胖和心脏病危机。然而，一位相识的资深心脏病专家却半开玩笑半认真地对他说：“阿西姆，你这样做会影响到我们的业务——我们的支架介入手术业务。”这句戏谑之言背后揭示了医疗体制内一个阴暗的公开秘密：体制内高层与贪婪的商业巨头、制药公司深度捆绑，牢牢受制于自身利益，以至于让真正的预防医学被边缘化，病人的根本利益被抛在脑后。 主持人随后拿起阿西姆的书《皮奥皮饮食》（*The Pioppi Diet*），两人打趣该书书名的发音（Pioppi，意大利著名长寿村）。主持人提问，如果一个人想要一辈子维持极佳的心脏健康，在理想状态下一天的作息与生活方式究竟应该如何安排。阿西姆开宗明义地指出了几个关键维度：首要的一点就是保证睡眠，每晚至少睡够 7 个小时；其次是坚持食用真正的完整食物（real food）。 ### [01:48:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6522s) 饮食结构、断食的争议与抗炎营养学 谈到日常进餐频次，阿西姆认为不必被条条框框束缚，每天吃两餐到三餐完全取决于个人节奏与饥饿感，关键是“饿了就吃，饱了就停”，绝对不要变成一天吃七八顿零食。最核心的底线是：杜绝超加工食品（ultra-processed food），并且控制淀粉摄入量。 针对主持人关于间歇性断食（fasting）的提问，阿西姆指出这是一个争议很大、研究数据参半的领域。断食并非适合所有人：部分患者感觉良好，但对另一些人而言断食反而增加了身体压力。尤其是在高强度运动且睡眠不足的情况下，盲目断食会导致体内皮质醇（压力荷尔蒙）激增，反噬健康。因此断食需因人而异。在具体食物选择上，阿西姆推荐了一套强力抗炎的真实食物组合： - **蔬果摄入**：每天摄入 5 至 7 份完整的水果与蔬菜，水果优先选择混合浆果等低糖水果。 - **基底脂肪与坚果**：以特级初榨橄榄油（extra virgin olive oil）作为烹饪和搭配的核心脂肪；每天补充坚果与种子（如杏仁、核桃、榛子等）。 - **优质蛋白**：每周至少吃两次富含 Omega-3 的深海肥鱼（oily fish）。 - **破除饱和脂肪迷思**：阿西姆强调，牛排、黄油、奶酪以及红肉并非心脏病的罪魁祸首，每周吃两到三次牛排没有任何问题，天然饱和脂肪危害健康的陈旧神话早已被学术界打破。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 心脏健康每日生活方式系统 accDescr: 涵盖睡眠、饮食配比、压力管理、运动及社交接触的心脏保护闭环 subgraph RestDiet["基础生理与营养"] A["充足睡眠<br/>每晚 7+ 小时"] B["真实完整食物<br/>避免超加工与过量淀粉"] C["抗炎营养基石<br/>橄榄油 / 坚果 / 肥鱼 / 蔬果"] end subgraph StressMovement["身心平衡与运动"] D["压力调节<br/>晨起呼吸练习 / 冥想"] E["适度有氧活动<br/>每周 150 分钟中等强度"] end subgraph SocialConnection["社交与人际神经机制"] F["优质社交与拥抱<br/>激活舒缓神经 / 降低皮质醇"] G["心脏与免疫全面获益"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F F --> G ``` ### [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6642s) 运动过量的危害与“无法跑赢垃圾饮食” 在调整完睡眠与饮食后，主持人询问早晨醒来后的后续步骤。阿西姆强调必须评估并管理压力，他自己每天早晨醒来第一件事就是打开 Calm 应用程序，做 20 到 40 分钟的呼吸练习（breath work）。然而，针对主持人提出想要“呼吸练习加超长时间剧烈运动”的念头，阿西姆发出了明确警告：运动过量确实存在，而且后果相当严重。 阿西姆援引数据指出，大约 11% 的精英耐力运动员在 50 岁时，心脏扫描会出现严重的血管堵塞或器质性心脏病。他曾接诊过一位年轻女患者，生活没有糖尿病等任何代谢疾病，每天极度疯狂地跑 5 到 10 英里，但每晚仅睡 4 个小时，最终查出严重的心脏病。关于运动的核心事实包括： - **心血管风险对等**：研究显示，马拉松运动员发生心脏病发作和中风的频率，与已经确诊心血管疾病的普通人群相似，证实过度极限运动对心血管系统有直接损害。 - **免疫抑制**：每天进行超过 1 小时剧烈运动的运动员，每年发生呼吸道感染的频率是进行适度运动人群的 4 倍。 - **黄金标准**：遵循每周 150 分钟的中等强度运动（例如阿西姆自己选择每周 5 次、每次 30 分钟使心率达到约 115 次/分的骑行，避免长跑磨损膝盖关节）。全球长寿的“蓝区”（Blue Zones）居民从未死磕健身房，而是依靠园艺、散步等日常自然活动。 - **运动无法用于减肥**：阿西姆曾与人合著发表于《英国运动医学杂志》（*British Journal of Sports Medicine*）的重磅文章《是时候打破体力活动与肥胖的迷思了：你无法跑赢不良饮食》（*It's Time to Bust the Myth of Physical Activity: You Cannot Outrun a Bad Diet*）。文章强调，运动带来诸多健康好处，但减重绝非其中之一；体重的增减几乎完全由吃进肚里的食物决定。“运动消耗卡路里即可抵消肥胖”是可口可乐、麦当劳等跨国食品巨头为了转移其垃圾食品的危害而一手炮制的营销公关话术。 ### [01:54:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6850s) 社交连接与“拥抱处方”的降压机制 在这一天的理想生活蓝图中，阿西姆指出最后也是极其关键的一环——社交关系与高质量的人际连接。现代社会灌输了一种错误的个人主义观念，让人误以为完全独立、无需他人即可生存；但从进化心理学和生物学来看，人类需要彼此依偎来获得安全感。 阿西姆甚至在门诊中会正式给病人（特别是伴侣之间）开出“拥抱处方”（prescribing hugging）。身体拥抱能够激活大脑深处的舒缓与保护回路，显著降低体内的皮质醇水平，进而减轻血管内皮压力，达到预防心脏病发作的效果。不仅如此，主持人与阿西姆进一步探讨了拥抱对人体免疫系统的积极影响，指出早期关于感冒病毒感染的经典医学实验同样证明了社交支持与肢体接触在筑牢免疫屏障上的神奇功效。 ### [01:55:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6917s) 社交联系与免疫力：孤独如何削弱人体的防御机制 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉（Dr Aseem Malhotra）分享了一项在2000年代初进行的引人入胜的医学研究。在这项实验中，研究人员将普通的感冒病毒滴入受试者的鼻腔内，随后观察哪些人真正出现了感冒症状，哪些人没有。在接种病毒之前，研究人员通过详尽的问卷调查了受试者社交生活的各个维度，包括是否参与社区活动、与朋友见面的频率，以及与伴侣之间的亲密关系质量等。 评估结果呈现出惊人的对比：在社交评分最高的群体中，仅有三分之一的人最终发病出现感冒症状；而在那些相对孤独、缺乏人际互动且人际关系质量较差的人群中，发病比例高达三分之二。这有力地证明了，良好的人际纽带不仅关乎心血管健康，更直接调控着人体的免疫系统。史蒂文（Steven Bartlett）对此深有感触地指出，统计数据表明孤独感正在成为一种日益严重的流行病，如果任其蔓延，这种孤独正在实实在在地吞噬人们的生命。 - **感冒病毒接种实验对比**： - 社交评分高、人际关系优质群体：仅 **1/3** 发展出感冒症状。 - 孤独、缺乏社交互动群体：多达 **2/3** 发展出感冒症状。 - **机制启示**：高质量的社交与情感连接不仅预防心脏疾病，更是免疫屏障的重要生理基石。 ### [01:56:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6973s) 信任崩塌与道德重塑：不敢说真话的社会危机 随着讨论深入，马尔霍特拉医生将视线从个体的生理健康拓宽至整个社会的系统性危机。他提到，当前社会正面临精神健康恶化与公众对政府信任度骤降的双重夹击。社会向前发展的根本基石在于人与人之间能够建立互信，而这种信任必须建立在“人们不畏惧讲出真话”的前提之上。然而，当前的现状却恰恰相反——尤其是在医学界，人们普遍生活在一股害怕讲出真相的氛围中，新冠疫苗事件不过是这种庞大系统性压抑的一个缩影。当真相被隐匿，不确定感和猜忌便会蔓延，从而给整个社会施加巨大的心理慢性压力。 马尔霍特拉医生强调，要解开心理、生理及社交健康的整体危机，终究需要回归到美德与伦理的起点。行事的出发点必须基于真诚的动机与诚实，而非为了金钱利益去操纵他人。他痛心地指出，现行的资本主义经济体制导致了“人的全面企业化”，把人变成了逐利的工具，这种唯利是图的体系对全人类的身心健康构成了极为深远的伤害。 ### [01:57:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7039s) 父亲的教诲与悼词：智慧源于对话与质疑 史蒂文询问起马尔霍特拉医生已故父亲的名字，马尔霍特拉深情地答道：“卡什（Kash）。”史蒂文提起了一段往事：在马尔霍特拉年幼时，曾经想过更换自己支持的足球队，当时父亲对他说了一句影响他一生的话：“儿子，永远不要改变你的忠诚（Son, never change your loyalties）。”忠诚、正直与诚实是父亲从小灌输给他的核心价值观，教导他如何成为一个真正优秀的人，如何成为最好的自己，这不仅为了个人，也是为了造福他人。 史蒂文随后翻出了马尔霍特拉当年在父亲葬礼上撰写的悼词。悼词中的字句在当天的访谈中显得尤为契合：“知识的终极目的是减轻人类的痛苦；而为了实现这一目的，真正的智慧唯有从对话中诞生。”马尔霍特拉解释说，这是引用苏格拉底的名言。理解他人始于理解自我，若想探寻更高的真理，一个人必须具备质疑自身既有信念的勇气；而要做到这一点，就必须心怀慈悲地与他人对话，带着开放的心态倾听各个方面的声音。然而令人遗憾的是，现代社会正在丧失这种对话能力，陷入了极端的立场极化。 ### [01:58:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7138s) 对话的力量与避免审查：寻找更深层的真理 史蒂文完全赞同这一观点，同时坦言在当下展开讨论充满挑战。涉及疫苗或医疗健康的信息往往极为敏感，一旦处理不当，错误的言论可能致命；但与此同时，更具致命危险的是“完全缺乏对话”，即拒绝让不同的思想进行碰撞。史蒂文坦陈，自己在节目中采访过各领域的专业人士，常因非医学背景而遭受指责，但他的初衷并非站队，而是毫无保留地呈现所有观点，展现正反双方的反驳依据，让观众能够自主思考并得出结论。 马尔霍特拉医生对此深表认同，并激动地表示，当前最大的症结在于社会上甚至连正常的讨论都被剥夺了；可以有反驳，可以有对立观点，但选择直接“无视和压制对话”是不可原谅的。史蒂文指出，长音频播客正是打破这种沉默的重要形式，并通过评论区让公众参与研讨。他承诺会将马尔霍特拉提供的所有研究资料，连同英国国民医疗服务体系（NHS）及英国心脏基金会（BHF）的反向观点链接一并附在节目简介中。 史蒂文补充道，真理往往居于中间的微妙地带。历史上的伟大先驱——无论是马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther King Jr.）、争取女性参政权论者（suffragettes），还是甘地（Gandhi）——他们的理念在当时无一例外遭遇了猛烈甚至敌视的抵制。回望历史，公众理应保持谦逊：一项至关重要的思想在最初出现时，可能会刺痛人们的舒适区，甚至违背当下所谓的主流共识，但绝不应因此被扣上帽子实施审查。马尔霍特拉医生对此总结道，人类追求真理与更高维度的认知，归根结底是因为一个朴素的真理：“生活在黑暗中的生命，毫无意义。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 对话与真理的追求模型 accDescr: 展示从保持谦逊倾听不同声音到探寻更高真理的认知循环过程。 subgraph Mindset["认知基础"] A["自我审视与谦逊<br/>质疑自身固有信念"] B["慈悲与倾听心态<br/>包容冒犯与对立观点"] end subgraph Process["对话与碰撞"] C["开放式长篇对话<br/>思想碰撞与辩论"] D["拒绝审查与压制<br/>兼听主流与反向论据"] end subgraph Outcome["终极目的"] E["寻找中间地带与微观细节<br/>抵达更高真理"] F["减少人类痛苦<br/>赋予生命真正意义"] end A --> C B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F ``` ### [02:01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7308s) 压轴提问：超级巨星的核心特质与人道主义之爱 节目录制接近尾声，史蒂文引出了《CEO日记》的标志性收尾传统：上一位匿名嘉宾为下一位嘉宾留下了一个未拆封的问题。留给马尔霍特拉医生的问题是：“在你一生中遇到的所有最卓越的超级巨星（Superstars）身上，哪一种特质造就了他们的伟大？这种特质是可以后天习得的吗？” 马尔霍特拉医生毫不犹豫地回答：“对人类的爱（A love for humanity）。”他认为，无论这些巨星身处娱乐、音乐还是体育领域，他们之所以能够登峰造极，底层驱动力都是出于对人类同胞的挚爱，渴望以某种方式回馈整个社会。 史蒂文对这个回答深表赞同。他坦言，在自己脑海中真正被视为“超级巨星”的人，往往既不富有也不出名，而是那些品质崇高、令人向往成为的人。在史蒂文看来，这些顶尖人物除了对人类怀有爱心外，身上最耀眼的特质是在卓越成就面前始终保有不可思议的“谦逊（humility）”。 在访谈的最后，史蒂文向观众介绍了马尔霍特拉医生的社交平台及著作，重点推荐了《皮奥皮饮食》（*The Pioppi Diet*）以及《摆脱他汀类药物的生活》（*A Statin-Free Life*），称赞这两本书为逆转2型糖尿病、预防心血管疾病提供了革命性的生活方案。史蒂文由衷感谢马尔霍特拉医生敢于在需要制衡声音的时代站出来，成为社会中那道响亮而无畏的反思之声，并高度评价他的行事初衷与善良人格，无愧于悉心培养他的父母。 ### [02:03:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7439s) 追寻真相的无畏精神与节目结语 主持人 Steven Bartlett 向 Aseem Malhotra 医生表达了由衷的感谢，感谢他抽出宝贵时间做客节目并坚持开展具有开创性的工作。Steven 坦言自己多年来一直在 Twitter（现 X）上关注 Malhotra 医生，并极为享受阅读他分享的见解与资讯。 Steven 强调，Malhotra 医生身上有一种极其罕见的“无畏精神”（fearlessness）——无论面临怎样的后果与压力，始终坚持传递真实的事实。在当今这个时代，人们往往更容易被舒适的谎言所裹挟，但对于那些渴望提升认知、在思维上不断进步，且重视“真相与前行”胜过“心理舒适感”的人来说，Malhotra 医生的发声是一个无可替代的宝贵信息源。最后，主持人极力推荐所有听众去社交媒体上关注 Malhotra 医生，对话在温馨而充满力量的致谢与背景音乐中圆满落幕。 - **坚持追寻真相**：主持人赞赏 Malhotra 医生不顾外界阻力与个人后果、始终直言不讳揭示医疗健康真相的勇气。 - **拥抱不舒适的进步**：真正的认知成长往往来自于直面令人不适的事实，而非沉溺于虚假的安全感中。 ## Notable quotes > [02:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=144s) 首先，不造成伤害 — 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 > [21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=1285s) 各位，我必须明确一点：我们绝不能进一步深究这些发现，因为这可能会影响我们未来从制药行业获得的研发资金。 — 英国顶尖机构首席研究员 > [51:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3066s) 坦白讲，我身边大多数身处资深医疗决策和政策制定职位的建制派同行，他们关于疫苗获益与危害的信息，全都是看 BBC 新闻得来的。 — 昌德·纳格保罗 > [01:03:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=3824s) 沉默本身就是谎言 — 乔丹·彼得森 > [01:06:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4010s) 首先他们无视你，接着他们嘲笑你，然后他们打击你，最后你赢了。 — 圣雄甘地 > [01:08:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4133s) 如果预防一次新冠的代价是六个月后因突发心脏骤停而死，这种预防的意义何在？ — 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 > [01:21:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=4867s) 笨蛋，问题是胆固醇 — 威廉·罗伯茨 > [01:31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=5476s) 人体对于所谓的添加糖或精制白糖，不存在任何营养学层面的需求。 — 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 > [01:47:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6430s) 阿西姆，你这样做会影响到我们的业务——我们的支架介入手术业务。 — 资深心脏病专家 > [01:50:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=6642s) 是时候打破体力活动与肥胖的迷思了：你无法跑赢不良饮食 — 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 > [01:57:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7039s) 儿子，永远不要改变你的忠诚 — 卡什·马尔霍特拉 > [01:57:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7039s) 知识的终极目的是减轻人类的痛苦；而为了实现这一目的，真正的智慧唯有从对话中诞生。 — 苏格拉底 > [01:58:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7138s) 生活在黑暗中的生命，毫无意义。 — 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 > [02:01:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A&t=7308s) 对人类的爱 — 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 ## Mentioned 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉 (Dr Aseem Malhotra), 史蒂芬·巴特利特 (Steven Bartlett), 《CEO 日记》(The Diary Of A CEO), 英国国家医疗服务体系 (NHS), 英国药品和健康产品管理局 (MHRA), 皇家内科医师学会 (Royal College of Physicians, RCP), 英国医学会 (BMA), 英国心脏基金会 (BHF), 辉瑞 (Pfizer), 莫德纳 (Moderna), 阿斯利康 (AstraZeneca), 他汀类药物 (Statins), 《英国医学杂志》(The BMJ), 《循环》(Circulation), 《自然》(Nature), 《柳叶刀》(The Lancet), 《Vaccine》期刊, 《皮奥皮饮食》(The Pioppi Diet), 《摆脱他汀类药物的生活》(A Statin-Free Life), 《首先不造成伤害》(First Do No Pharm), 黄卡计划 (Yellow Card Scheme), 史蒂文·冈德里 (Dr Steven Gundry), 罗里·柯林斯 (Professor Rory Collins), 昌德·纳格保罗 (Chaand Nagpaul), 萨吉德·贾维德 (Sajid Javid), 杰里米·亨特 (Jeremy Hunt), 威廉·罗伯茨 (William Roberts), 卡什·马尔霍特拉 (Kash Malhotra) ## Video description The REAL cure to heart disease, and other medical secrets revealed Dr Aseem Malhotra is a consultant cardiologist based at the HUM2N clinic in London. He is the best-selling author of books including, ‘The Pioppi Diet’, ‘The 21-Day Immunity Plan’, and ‘A Statin-Free Life’. 00:00 Intro 03:10 The title for your book, why? 05:44 Your professional title 07:46 Why did you decide to specialise in the heart? 09:57 How many people are dying because of unhealthy hearts? 11:47 Why do women get fewer heart diseases? 12:22 The NHS failed you, how? 16:07 How could these deaths have been avoided 20:34 The vaccine causing body and heart inflammation 28:27 Being accused of spreading misinformation 30:09 The harm of the vaccine 34:43 Responding to the British Heart Foundation comments 37:34 Our lifestyle choices contribute to our heart problems 40:46 Did the vaccine have a net negative result? 43:42 COVID was a lab leak 45:57 The drug companies misleading us 49:18 Do you think there would have been less death without the vaccine? 51:09 The government said the vaccine will protect us from COVID... 54:14 Is it a malicious action from the government? 56:30 How are we meant to trust the government if this happens again? 01:02:49 How do we know who's telling the truth? 01:07:39 What is it like to be attacked constantly? 01:12:27 What causes heart disease? 01:17:59 How to stop heart disease 01:25:10 The shocking truth about statins 01:32:07 The average amount of sugar consumed 01:37:48 Are you hopeful we can overcome our sugar addictions? 01:38:48 Ultra-processed foods need to be treated like the new tobacco 01:40:02 How much is the average American increasing their risk of getting heart disease? 01:43:39 Stress is a silent killer 01:48:57 What should my daily routine be for a healthy heart? 01:49:47 Fasting for optimising our health 01:52:04 Is there such a thing as too much exercise? 01:53:56 Exercise doesn't help with weight loss 01:54:45 The importance of socialising on our health 01:55:38 Why you need to start hugging more 01:58:07 What do you think your dad would be thinking? 01:59:47 The power of conversation 02:02:38 The last guest question Follow Dr Aseem: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/17qFASxxuLb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/LSaQFOzxuLb Website - https://g2ul0.app.link/9OtjLDo5uLb You can purchase Dr Aseem’s book, ‘A Statin-Free Life’, here: https://amzn.to/4fhO5sb Learn more about the studies mentioned, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/Mq1EUrg5uLb Learn more about Dr Aseem’s film, ‘First Do No Pharm’, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/oDCFIbt5uLb [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R87QLweXl1A)

[2:24] 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉: 首先，不造成伤害 [21:25] 英国顶尖机构首席研究员: 各位，我必须明确一点：我们绝不能进一步深究这些发现，因为这可能会影响我们未来从制药行业获得的研发资金。 [51:06] 昌德·纳格保罗: 坦白讲，我身边大多数身处资深医疗决策和政策制定职位的建制派同行，他们关于疫苗获益与危害的信息，全都是看 BBC 新闻得来的。 [63:44] 乔丹·彼得森: 沉默本身就是谎言 [66:50] 圣雄甘地: 首先他们无视你，接着他们嘲笑你，然后他们打击你，最后你赢了。 [68:53] 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉: 如果预防一次新冠的代价是六个月后因突发心脏骤停而死，这种预防的意义何在？ [81:07] 威廉·罗伯茨: 笨蛋，问题是胆固醇 [91:16] 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉: 人体对于所谓的添加糖或精制白糖，不存在任何营养学层面的需求。 [107:10] 资深心脏病专家: 阿西姆，你这样做会影响到我们的业务——我们的支架介入手术业务。 [110:42] 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉: 是时候打破体力活动与肥胖的迷思了：你无法跑赢不良饮食 [117:19] 卡什·马尔霍特拉: 儿子，永远不要改变你的忠诚 [117:19] 苏格拉底: 知识的终极目的是减轻人类的痛苦；而为了实现这一目的，真正的智慧唯有从对话中诞生。 [118:58] 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉: 生活在黑暗中的生命，毫无意义。 [121:48] 阿西姆·马尔霍特拉: 对人类的爱

[20:34] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: If I today decided that I was going to just consume junk food, all my meals, right? I was going to smoke 20 cigarettes a day. I was going to stop exercising. I wouldn't get anywhere close to increasing my risk within 8 weeks. [27:03] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: They found, Steve, you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine at a rate of 1 in 800—that meant hospitalization, disability, or a life-changing event—than you were to be hospitalized with COVID. [31:31] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: In medicine, in all the drugs I've used and all the data I know about... that figure is a joke. [33:54] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: The British Heart Foundation, with the greatest respect to them... is still part of the so-called establishment which has been blinded for years to actually even address so many issues on health when it doesn't suit the interests of Big Pharma. [36:45] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: It paints a picture that makes it look as clear as day... this is the primary cause of the excess deaths until proven otherwise. [45:00] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: They will mislead people using statistics about the benefits... absolute risk reduction is what you must explain for true informed consent. [55:41] Steven Bartlett: It's like if you said to me dogs are savaging one in 800 people... the average person might not think if that's a chihuahua or a German shepherd—we just heard 'dogs,' and then there's going to be a fear of dogs. [63:00] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: When I talk about statin drugs, for example, I say, 'I'm going to give you these numbers, but there are lots of caveats here.'... Patients want that—they want more information in a way that they can understand. [63:00] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Our medical regulator in this country, MHRA, gets 86% of its funding from Big Pharma... So they're not independent. [67:08] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: To have the knowledge and deep understanding that, in my view, we are dealing with one of the greatest likely corporate crimes... and to not be able to see enough progress for this to be resolved... gives me very deep pain. [97:48] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: We need to treat ultra-processed food... as the new tobacco. [103:39] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: The risk of heart disease linked to stress... is actually the same as being a smoker, or having high blood pressure, or having type two diabetes. [104:24] Senior Colleague of Dr. Malhotra: Aseem, this is going to affect our stent business. [114:08] Dr. Aseem Malhotra: It's Time to Bust the Myth of Physical Inactivity and Obesity: You Can't Outrun a Bad Diet [117:19] Dr. Kailash Chand: Son, never change your loyalties.

[0:00] From everything I know now, I've [0:01] reluctantly come to the conclusion that [0:04] the COVID vaccine introduction has had a [0:07] catastrophic net negative effect on [0:10] society. And this is really most [0:11] disturbing and I've not been public [0:13] about this before, so I'm going to tell [0:14] you this for the first time. [0:15] Dr. Aim Malhatra is one of the UK's [0:18] leading celebrity heart doctors whose [0:20] influential research has sparked [0:22] important conversations about nutrition [0:24] and exercise and the healthare system. [0:25] The Times journalist called me and said, [0:27] "We've got [music] reports now of a 25% [0:29] increase in heart attacks in hospitals [0:31] in Scotland which are unexplained. What [0:33] do you think about the vaccine?" I was a [0:34] bit surprised. I said, "What do you [0:35] mean?" He said, "And to have that deep [0:37] knowledge and understanding gives me [0:38] very deep pain." And medical knowledge [0:41] is under commercial control. This [0:42] [music] is the root of the problem. The [0:44] system is psychopathic when it comes to [0:46] making money. And there [music] is so [0:47] much harm that comes from drug [0:49] prescriptions. One credible estimate [0:51] suggests the third most common cause of [0:53] death globally after heart disease [0:54] [music] and cancer is prescribed [0:56] medications. This is a dirty secret [0:58] within medicine. We should shift our [1:00] approach [music] to health from a [1:01] predominantly drug-based model within [1:03] healthcare to one which is more based [1:06] upon lifestyle. So what is that? The [1:08] first thing that needs to be done is by [1:10] 2030 it's estimated that about 23.3 [1:13] million people will die yearly because [1:15] of heart disease globally and there are [1:17] 200 million people taking statins [1:17] [music] around the world. But the [1:19] increase in life expectancy with statins [1:22] over a 5year period, 4.2 days. [1:24] How do I prevent myself ending up on [1:26] either statins or having a heart attack? [1:29] This is really important information. [1:31] So, [1:34] quick one before we get back to this [1:35] episode. Just give me 30 seconds of your [1:37] time. Two things I wanted to say. The [1:39] first thing is a huge thank you for [1:41] listening and tuning into the show week [1:43] after week. It means the world to all of [1:44] us and this really is a dream that we [1:46] absolutely never had and couldn't have [1:48] imagined getting to this place. But [1:50] secondly, it's a dream where we feel [1:51] like we're only just getting started. [1:53] And if you enjoy what we do here, please [1:55] join the 24% of people who watch this [1:58] channel regularly and have hit the [2:00] subscribe button. Means more than I can [2:02] say. And if you hit that subscribe [2:04] button, here's a promise I'm going to [2:05] make to you. I'm going to do everything [2:07] in my power to make this show as good as [2:09] I can now and into the future. We're [2:12] going to deliver the guests that you [2:13] want me to speak to and we're going to [2:14] continue to keep doing all of the things [2:16] you love about this show. Thank you. [2:19] Thank you so much. Back to the episode. [2:22] [music] [2:24] Dr. Aim, [2:26] you're working on a documentary called [2:28] First Do No Farm, which will be out [2:30] shortly. Why did you choose the name for [2:34] your documentary, First Do No Farm? [2:36] Well, first and foremost, the credit to [2:38] that name actually goes to my [2:39] co-producer, Donal O'Neal, who's made a [2:41] number of health documentaries. Um, and [2:43] he's a former international athlete. Uh, [2:46] you know, and he used to work in [2:47] marketing and PR, so he's very good with [2:48] with slogans and sound bites. Um but it [2:51] it it totally resonated with with my [2:54] work and what I've been doing probably [2:55] for well over a decade which is to try [2:58] and shift um our approach to health from [3:01] a predominantly pharmacologicalbased [3:04] drug-based model within healthcare to [3:07] one which is more based upon lifestyle. [3:10] And that's because that's where the best [3:12] evidence is in terms of improving our [3:15] health but also in terms of managing the [3:18] health care system where there is so [3:20] much waste where drugs are [3:21] overprescribed and obviously first do [3:24] noarm means in the consultation room the [3:27] ideal scenario should be with every [3:30] patient that if there is a uh [3:34] non-drug-based way non-farmacological [3:36] way of managing their illness chronic [3:38] disease which is the big problem in [3:40] society right now on healthare systems. [3:42] Uh that should be the primary primary [3:44] approach. Um as well as highlighting [3:48] through the title that there is so much [3:50] harm that comes from drug prescriptions. [3:52] Just I mean this is something that even [3:55] brings gasps from audiences when I give [3:57] talks and lectures all around the world. [3:59] And whenever even I say it, I even think [4:01] bloody hell, how have we got to this [4:02] situation? That, you know, one credible [4:05] estimate suggests the third most common [4:07] cause of death globally after heart [4:08] disease and cancer is prescribed [4:11] medications. What your doctor prescribes [4:13] for you so-called appropriately. [4:16] mainly because the information which [4:20] doctors use to make decisions for [4:22] patients when it's prescribing drugs [4:24] invariably is based upon a gross [4:28] exaggeration on the safety and the [4:31] benefits of those drugs [4:33] and the phrase first do no harm which is [4:36] the original phrase that you've spanned [4:37] for the title where does that phrase [4:39] originate from [4:39] well actually it's one of the basic [4:41] principles of medical ethics you know as [4:43] doctors that's the something that's [4:45] almost we indoctr ated or ingrained with [4:47] whenever we you know practice medicine [4:50] treat patients um that should be the [4:52] that's at the forefront of our minds. It [4:54] should be at the forefront of our minds. [4:55] What what professionally what is your [4:58] professional title? [5:00] Um I'm a consultant cardiologist. [5:02] What does that mean if I [5:03] So I uh I special so I qualified as a [5:05] doctor um medical doctor in 2001. Um and [5:09] then after um becoming a um I I decided [5:13] after two or three years of doing my [5:15] sort of initial post-graduate basic [5:17] training in medicine to subsp [5:19] specialcialize in cardiology which is [5:21] basically everything to do with the [5:22] heart and then within that subsp [5:24] specialcialization of cardiology or [5:26] specialization of cardiology I trained [5:29] in interventional cardiology. Um in [5:33] layman's term Steve that means keyhole [5:35] heart surgery. So that's what I trained [5:37] to do. [5:37] [clears throat] [5:38] Um and I did that um uh you know up [5:40] until probably 2014 2015 and then I [5:44] shifted more towards a more holistic [5:46] approach to managing heart disease [5:48] especially looking at the science and [5:51] practicing the evidence base behind how [5:54] lifestyle changes can manage heart [5:56] disease and even potentially reverse it. [5:58] You must have seen a lot of hearts in [6:00] your time. [6:00] Yes. I I I think in terms of I was [6:03] thinking about this because you know up [6:05] until 2019 I was you know an NHS doctor. [6:08] We'll come back to later why what [6:10] happened in 2019 but and that's my [6:12] passion. Um but within the NHS which I [6:15] think trains doctors brilliantly um it's [6:19] a very high intense workload. Um and uh [6:23] just to give you perspective on that um [6:25] you know we have the highest uh capita [6:30] population per doctors in Europe. So [6:32] least number of doctors per uh [6:35] population in the country um and the [6:37] most number of doctors on night shift. [6:38] So it's quite intense and because of [6:40] that I was thinking back in terms of the [6:42] patients I would see on the wards and [6:44] the throughput and the people that I [6:45] would see you know in the what we call [6:47] cardiac catheter lab where we did the [6:49] diagnostic angagrams to visualize the [6:51] heart arteries and we put stances in [6:53] etc. Over my career I've probably [6:55] managed tens of thousands of patients. [6:58] Why did you choose to specialize in the [7:01] heart versus other parts of the sort of [7:04] medical um ecosystem that you could have [7:06] pursued? What was there something? [7:09] Yeah, I don't know if there's one answer [7:11] to that. I think one trigger very early [7:13] on in my life is um you know I grew up [7:16] in a medical family. Both my parents [7:18] were GPS and I had an older brother who [7:20] had Down syndrome [7:22] and uh which also meant he had a small [7:24] hole in his heart as well. And when I [7:27] was 11 and he was 13, shortly after his [7:30] birthday um he got a tummy bug. Uh [7:34] standard tummy bug. We didn't think [7:36] anything of it. Within 6 days, Steve um [7:38] he became breathless and rapidly [7:41] deteriorated. Got admitted to hospital [7:42] and had a cardiac arrest and died. And [7:45] later on it emerged his you know the [7:47] postmortem showed his heart was [7:48] massively enlarged and essentially had [7:50] something called viral myocarditis. It [7:52] can happen actually to anybody. You get [7:54] a a cold and in one in 10,000 people up [7:58] to one in 100,000 people. The body then [8:01] has what we call an autoimmune reaction. [8:03] instead of dealing with a cold on its [8:05] own, it then attacks the heart. And and [8:07] in a third of those patients, you can [8:09] basically who get that, they will [8:11] deteriorate and they will die. And so I [8:13] think for me that had such a profound [8:14] impact on my life. Um and with both [8:17] parents being doctors, of course, there [8:18] was a bit of there was no pressure from [8:20] my parents. They wanted me to, you know, [8:21] my dad wanted to be a cricketer. But, [8:23] um, I think that was implanted in my [8:26] mind that if I was to go into medicine, [8:29] I wanted to get involved in managing and [8:32] helping people, you know, or prevent [8:34] heart disease. So, I think that's where [8:36] it started from. It's interesting cuz [8:37] when we think about our health, [8:40] a lot of people think about the amount [8:41] of weight they have on them. They think, [8:43] you know, abdominal fat. They think [8:45] about how strong they are, their muscles [8:46] and things like that. Then a lot of the [8:47] other things are very superficial the [8:50] sort of measures of our health because [8:52] we've never really seen our heart and [8:54] it's similar to our brain because we've [8:55] never seen our heart or our brain we I [8:58] think we typically devalue the role that [8:59] they play in our over overall health but [9:01] when I was reading some stats around [9:03] heart disease and how how many people [9:07] die from heart disease I was shocked so [9:11] if we start there then can you give me a [9:13] sort of macro picture on why it's [9:15] important to keep our hearts healthy [9:17] and how um how many people are are dying [9:21] because of unhealthy hearts. [9:22] Yeah. So globally [9:25] um it's estimated and it's on the [9:27] increase by uh that certainly by 2030 [9:30] it's estimated that about 23.3 million [9:32] people will die um yearly because of [9:36] heart disease globally right and that's [9:39] a huge number and and just to put it in [9:40] perspective it's the one of the leading [9:43] causes of premature death in European [9:45] men it is the leading cause of premature [9:47] death and uh and that's why I think it's [9:50] so important not just about people's [9:52] lives being cut short early. But also [9:54] there is an associated morbidity which [9:56] means the quality of life deterioration [9:58] that happens with people who are [10:00] diagnosed with heart disease that may [10:01] not be able to exercise very much [10:03] because they get pain in their chest [10:04] because of a blockage or they may [10:06] develop what we call heart failure where [10:07] the pump function of the heart is [10:09] affected [snorts] because of blockages [10:11] or because of a previous heart attack [10:12] they survived and therefore they can't [10:14] actually do the activities they want to [10:15] enjoy. And that's you know way bigger in [10:18] fact that's well sorry just as important [10:20] as as of course the the premature death [10:22] rate. So, no, it's a massive issue. And [10:23] it's interesting, Steve, that you you [10:24] mentioned um the image side where people [10:27] think about excess body fat and big [10:28] muscles and that kind of thing. And that [10:30] also plays into a certain culture and [10:32] mindset that I think detracts from us [10:35] actually addressing the root cause of [10:36] many problems with society today in our [10:38] health. Um which is not related to image [10:41] actually. It's about the the basics of [10:43] of uh reducing stress, about our social [10:45] interactions, etc. [10:47] um to some degree obviously what we eat [10:49] is linked to to how we look but um yeah [10:51] I mean absolutely I think it's not [10:53] something people really think about [10:55] enough um often until it's too late. How [10:58] does it impact women? Because we [11:00] mentioned it being the single biggest [11:02] killer of men, I think, in Europe, you [11:03] said. What about women? [11:05] It's um not as bad for women. And part [11:09] of the reason for that, Steve, is and [11:11] traditionally women on average will live [11:14] live up to 10 years longer than men, [11:16] right? [11:16] And the reason for that is that women [11:18] don't tend to develop heart disease um [11:20] at the same age as men. But after the [11:23] menopause, the rates of heart disease [11:25] actually start to catch up. So even [11:27] though women will live longer, it's [11:29] still a big issue with women as well. [11:31] Um, absolutely. [11:33] Your mother passed in November 2018 [11:36] after a bout of sepsis. [11:38] The [11:40] interesting I read this quote you'd [11:41] said, I think it was on um on I news. [11:44] You said G you're a GP that had [11:46] dedicated 25 years of your life to the [11:47] NHS and ultimately you failed by it. [11:51] How were you failed by it? [11:57] In my mom's circumstance, what happened [11:59] was, you know, the system was under so [12:03] much strain. I mean, she had suffered [12:05] with a a debilitating rheumatoid and [12:07] osteoarthritis for many years. [12:09] Initially, I think a lot of her health [12:12] issues were rooted in her weight. I [12:14] mean, she was addicted to all to [12:15] processed food. She consumed a lot of [12:17] sugar. I grew up in a household where [12:18] there were just cakes and biscuits [12:20] everywhere. And, you know, she was a [12:21] very loving mom. Um, but I was addicted [12:24] to sugar probably because of that as [12:26] well for some time. But it affected her [12:28] health and I and and and I love my mom [12:30] very very dearly and it was [12:31] heartbreaking to watch her suffer slowly [12:33] over a number of years. But the way she [12:35] was failed by the NHS specifically is [12:37] [snorts] that um I had already been [12:40] campaigning for many many years in terms [12:41] of seeing how the system of the NHS was [12:43] being put under more pressure. a lot of [12:45] it by diet related disease and there [12:47] were so many opportunities for us to [12:50] that were being missed to actually [12:51] improve the system so that doctors could [12:54] provide quality care to every patient to [12:56] a good degree. When my mom was admitted [12:58] to hospital and she was sick with [13:00] infection in her spine, she'd become so [13:01] frail from her arthritis that her immune [13:04] system probably wasn't functioning [13:05] properly as well. because the hospital [13:07] was under so much strain because we had [13:09] not sorted out the root causes of the [13:10] pressure on the system. They missed a [13:12] heart attack for nine days. And it's [13:15] extraordinary, Steve. I remember I was a [13:17] they knew I was a cardiologist and it [13:19] was our local hospital. My dad was a [13:21] local GP and he was considered a medical [13:23] leader. I mean, he was loved and liked [13:25] and respected massively. So, even with [13:27] all of that, [snorts] um they did [13:30] everything they could to help her. But, [13:31] um she she went she became breathless [13:33] one day. They treated her for, you know, [13:35] um, uh, you know, for infection with [13:39] lots of fluid, etc. And, um, they [13:42] carried out a heart scan. It was [13:43] decided, let's do a heart scan on her. [13:44] But nobody actually looked at the result [13:47] of the heart scan and shared it with the [13:49] team because they were so busy they just [13:50] missed it. And I get sent the results 9 [13:54] days later being asked, "What do you [13:57] think?" And I immediately noticed that [13:59] it was an echo. It was a heart scan [14:00] looking at the pump muscle of the heart [14:01] that part of the heart muscle wasn't [14:03] working well. I said, "She's had it. [14:04] You've missed a it was a a relatively [14:07] minor heart attack, but enough to cause [14:08] her to go into what we call heart [14:09] failure." And within 24 hours, fluid in [14:11] the lung, intensive care, went into a [14:14] coma, and that was it. So that was a was [14:17] a failing of the NHS, but not because of [14:21] the principles of the NHS, but because [14:22] the NHS um over the years, Steve, has [14:27] lost its um basic ability to care for [14:31] patients because the principles of the [14:33] NHS have not been upheld. [14:36] For anyone that isn't aware, the NHS [14:38] means National Health Service, which is [14:40] the health service and system um within [14:42] the UK. the the I mean just a few years [14:47] later your father passes in July 21 from [14:50] a sudden unexplained heart attack at 73 [14:52] years old. Um [14:57] I mean so there's three members of your [14:59] family that have ultimately [15:02] um died as a result of or closely linked [15:05] to heart attacks. Your immediate family. [15:09] Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah to some degree. Yes. [15:13] All related to the heart. All related to [15:14] the heart. [15:18] Was your father's heart attack avoidable [15:21] in your view? If you think about the [15:22] lifestyle choices and things like that [15:24] that you you talked about your mother [15:25] there, was that avoidable any in any [15:27] sense of the word? [15:28] Yeah. Interesting. Um so there are two [15:30] components to my dad's um death. Um [15:34] strictly the the postmortem findings [15:37] didn't reveal a heart attack per se, but [15:39] for all intents and purposes it can be [15:40] seen that way. So, um, the first thing [15:43] that happened was, um, my dad, by the [15:45] way, was a very fit man for his age, 73 [15:47] years old. Um, played badson every week. [15:50] Um, had a bit of high blood pressure, [15:53] but had got that better controlled after [15:54] quitting sugar, partly because of all my [15:56] campaigning. Uh, and he listened to me [15:58] and he was very into eating healthy [15:59] food. In fact, you know, I consider [16:02] myself to be extremely fit. I'm obsessed [16:04] with exercise. Um, you know, I played a [16:06] lot of competitive sport when I was [16:07] younger, partly because of him. And uh [16:11] it was very unexpected when he called me [16:13] up. It's coming up to his anniversary, [16:15] July 26, 2021. [16:18] Uh and he said, "I seem I've got some [16:20] chest discomfort." And uh I asked him, [16:23] you know, to describe it. In medicine, [16:25] 80% of your diagnosis, if you're a good [16:27] doctor, comes from the conversation. So [16:29] the way he described his chest [16:30] discomfort was a central heaviness going [16:32] to his shoulders. So immediately think [16:33] this is heart. And I said, "You need to [16:35] call an ambulance." He was a bit [16:36] reluctant to call an ambulance for [16:37] whatever reason. And then I said, "Okay, [16:40] I was in London. He was in Manchester. [16:41] That's where I grew up. And I decided to [16:43] go and have a shower, get ready, and get [16:45] on the train." And he was ringing up his [16:48] uh neighbors who were both doctors. And [16:50] by the time I came out of the shower, I [16:52] called him back and there was no answer. [16:54] And I remember my heart just thinking, I [16:56] really hope he's not had a cardiac [16:57] arrest. It just I thought, "No, this is [16:58] this can't be can't be what's going on." [17:00] Kept ringing ringing. And eventually [17:04] um the neighbor who was a doctor who [17:05] knew me, she answered the phone and [17:07] said, "Seeam, your dad's had a cardiac [17:08] arrest. We're doing CPR in him." I know [17:11] from national data and I've even written [17:12] about this in the BMJ. The average [17:14] response time, Steve, for for for many [17:17] many years, one of the things uh that we [17:19] do have done very well in the NHS, some [17:21] of the best in the world, is our [17:23] treatment of heart attacks and the speed [17:24] of treatment and even cardiac arrests. I [17:26] knew the average response time was 8 [17:28] minutes. I said, "The ambulance will be [17:29] here in 8 minutes." because of the [17:31] timing almost certainly he will have [17:32] what we call a shockable rhythm as in um [17:35] the heart is probably in in a having a [17:38] electrical disturbance and we'll be able [17:40] to shock him out of it more than 50% [17:42] chance he will survive this is I'm [17:44] thinking already like this [17:47] 10 minutes pass by hasn't shown 20 [17:49] minutes nothing 30 minutes um they get [17:53] there and I FaceTime them they attach a [17:55] cardiac monitor it's a flatline he's [17:58] gone nothing to be done and of course [17:59] that was, you know, at that stage I was [18:02] obviously devastated and I I wrote in [18:05] the eye newspaper about how I I screamed [18:06] louder than ever screamed in my life. [18:09] But to come back to that situation first [18:12] and foremost so the first thing is if [18:14] the ambulance had turned up on time [18:15] almost certainly it's likely he would [18:17] have survived. That's the first thing. [18:18] But the second thing in my mind is why [18:20] has he had a cardiac arrest in the first [18:21] place? He was a really healthy guy in in [18:23] my family as in on his side there was no [18:26] family history of heart disease. He had [18:28] high blood pressure. Okay. But that was [18:30] about it, right? And he was otherwise [18:31] pretty good. [18:33] And when the postmortm came back, there [18:36] were three major arteries of the heart. [18:38] Two of them had severe blockages. And I [18:41] thought, "This is odd because I knew his [18:44] lifestyle. This is my area of interest [18:46] and expertise, heart disease [18:48] specifically, how it progresses, how you [18:49] can reverse it, all that stuff, what [18:51] medications can do, what they can't do [18:53] as well." And I thought to myself, hold [18:56] on, I knew his scan from a few years [18:58] earlier. Something has happened in the [19:00] last 2 or 3 years that has caused a [19:03] rapid acceleration in the disease of the [19:08] heart, right? In terms of the blockages [19:09] getting very rapidly, you know, um, uh, [19:12] progressing. And I thought, this doesn't [19:14] this this doesn't make sense. And I [19:16] thought to myself, was he just severely [19:18] stressed? Like stress can do it. Very [19:20] severe stress can do it. He'd lost [19:23] obviously my mom a couple of years [19:25] earlier, but he was a very resilient [19:27] guy. He was a vice president of the [19:28] British Medical Association. He was [19:29] still involved in medical politics [19:30] during COVID. He was one of the faces on [19:32] the BBC during the COVID pandemic [19:34] talking about, you know, how we should [19:36] manage this, etc. So, he was still very [19:38] mentally active. He wasn't a recluse [19:39] sitting in the corner, you know, he was [19:41] still social. So, doesn't really fit. [19:44] And then a publication appeared in the [19:47] journal circulation which is considered [19:49] a ver the premier cardiology journal and [19:53] a cardiologist called Steven Gundry who [19:56] you may have heard of. He's done a lot [19:57] of work in lifestyle and lectins and [19:58] stuff. So he he had and he actually had [20:00] a very senior role in the American Heart [20:02] Association very eminent published [20:03] cardiologist. he published um an [20:06] abstract where he had looked at several [20:08] hundred of of his patients who had taken [20:12] the COVID vaccines specifically mRNA [20:15] vaccines so either Fiser or Madna two [20:17] doses and what had happened was within 8 [20:21] weeks of taking those jabs [20:24] their baseline risk went from 11% chance [20:27] of a heart attack in 5 years to 25% [20:31] chance just within 8 weeks that is a [20:34] huge jump. Like just to give you [20:36] perspective, Steve, if I today decided [20:39] that I was gonna just consume junk food, [20:42] all my meals, right? I was going to [20:45] smoke 20 cigarettes a day. I was going [20:47] to stop exercising. I wouldn't get [20:49] anywhere close to increasing my risk [20:50] within 8 weeks. And the mechanism was [20:53] through inflammation. And I thought, ah, [20:55] I know heart disease is a chronic [20:57] inflammatory condition. Think it's a [20:58] lifestyle. So if this is even partially [21:01] true, it means that the co vaccines may [21:03] be causing inflammation around the heart [21:05] and that means that many people are [21:07] going to have an acceleration in heart [21:09] disease and that may explain what [21:11] happened to my dad. But that was only [21:12] one bit of data. Of course, a good [21:14] scientist knows, okay, it gets you [21:16] thinking. It's a hypothesis potentially. [21:18] Obviously, there's some data, but it's [21:20] not enough to be make it more than [21:22] likely at this stage. And within two [21:25] weeks, call it providence or whatever [21:27] else, um I got a phone call from uh [21:30] somebody who I know, I consider him uh [21:33] you know, one of the smartest [21:35] cardiologists, very high integrity from [21:37] very prestigious institution. [21:39] And he called me up and he said, "Asim, [21:42] I've got something to tell you. I'm very [21:43] upset." He said, "A group of researchers [21:46] that I'm linked to in this institution [21:49] um had accidentally found, and this is [21:52] nothing to do with blood tests or [21:53] cardiac risk, through an a very [21:55] high-tech imaging of the heart modality [21:57] they were using, that there was [22:00] inflammation of the arteries, which [22:02] would cause obviously potentially heart [22:03] attacks. That was there in the [22:05] vaccinated, but not there in the [22:07] unvaccinated. The lead researcher sat [22:10] the team down and he said, "Guys, I just [22:14] want to make this clear. We are not [22:15] going to explore these findings any [22:17] further because it may affect our [22:20] funding from the drug industry." [22:22] [snorts] Now, obviously, people hearing [22:24] this are going to think, "Wow, that is [22:26] sounds corrupt. Um, this is something [22:28] that has been a big problem within [22:30] medicine for a very, very long time, [22:31] which isn't getting an airing." But it [22:33] didn't surprise me of that. But it was [22:35] still quite shocking. But for me at that [22:36] stage, Steve, it was okay, at the very [22:39] least, I should ask the question. And I [22:42] was nervous about it. I had been someone [22:44] took the jab myself. I went to Good [22:47] Morning Britain and very early on when [22:48] they were just offering it to [22:50] high-risisk people to say that um I [22:53] think that this is probably safe and [22:55] people shouldn't be worried. And this [22:57] was again specifically to address people [22:59] from black and ethnic minority [23:01] communities because there was a lower [23:02] uptake amongst those communities. Partly [23:03] also because they often amongst some of [23:06] the most marginal is marginalized [23:08] members of society and they have less [23:10] trust in authority in government. So you [23:11] can see how the psychology plays in [23:13] there and I convinced a friend of mine [23:15] who's a film director Ginda Chada who [23:17] directed um Bendit like Beckham. You [23:19] might know some of her movies and we [23:20] went on together in Good Morning Britain [23:22] to say listen I think this and you know [23:23] this is fine. So I had all of that and [23:25] so I was in many ways I was [23:26] indoctrinated and and there is you know [23:29] and people don't like to admit they're [23:30] wrong or think they've got it wrong. So [23:32] for me to start turning or changing my [23:35] mind or asking the question um is not [23:37] necessarily an easy thing to do but I've [23:39] done that throughout my career. So you [23:40] know if anyone has the um character you [23:45] I know myself to be able to say listen [23:46] okay there's new evidence here or [23:47] whatever else I felt I could do that but [23:49] I was still nervous and I thought you [23:51] know this is not something that I think [23:53] the BBC are going to pick up on. I had a [23:56] good rapport um with GB News at that [23:58] point um and I still do and one of the [24:02] presenters Alexander Phillips was a [24:03] friend of mine and I called her up and [24:04] said listen um you know we were doing [24:07] she wanted me on anyway I was doing [24:09] regular health slots every few weeks I [24:11] said what I see what do you want to talk [24:12] about next week and I said I think let's [24:14] talk about this said okay go on GB news [24:18] I say you know the vaccine committee of [24:21] the country should look into this this [24:22] is what I know this is what I found [24:23] whistleblower all this stuff I my dad [24:25] died as well and this may be the reason [24:28] for his death. And I just asked that [24:30] question and of course I didn't expect [24:32] it to go viral. You know, it got [24:34] millions of views and it was getting [24:35] reach all over America and that kind of [24:37] thing. Strangely, by this point, Steve, [24:41] I don't know if you remember, but [24:42] Omicron wave had started and um we were [24:45] getting reports from South Africa, which [24:47] was really reassuring that from the [24:49] doctor that discovered it that this [24:51] doesn't seem to be more harmful than the [24:53] flu. Now, great. Okay, it's mutated. [24:55] It's a different strain. This is really [24:56] great news. And then Saja Javad around [24:59] the same time the secretary for health [25:01] had come out in parliament and said we [25:03] are now going to pass through [25:05] legislation that the COVID vaccine needs [25:08] to be mandated for healthcare workers [25:11] despite the fact that the British [25:12] Medical Association Medical Colleges [25:14] we've never in our country one thing [25:15] that's really good especially within the [25:17] medical establishment we don't believe [25:18] in mandating any drug. They do this in [25:20] America. They've never done this here. [25:22] And although they weren't very vocal [25:23] about it, they kind of were a bit [25:24] relatively quiet. They weren't [25:26] supporting it openly saying that we [25:27] should mandate. This was coming from [25:28] this political decision. I thought this [25:30] is very odd. At a stage now where we're [25:32] thinking there's serious harm, we know [25:34] it's not. And by that stage, 2021, [25:36] November, most people were understanding [25:38] now it wasn't stopping infection, right, [25:40] for most people, right? So I said, this [25:42] doesn't make any sense. So I then [25:44] started campaigning on this issue. And I [25:46] started campaigning on this issue. was [25:48] able to get into the mainstream news on [25:49] this particular issue because around [25:51] that time um the I newspaper had [25:55] published an investigation into the [25:57] delay that led to my dad's death of the [25:59] ambulance service right and I had also [26:03] got privy to knowledge in that you know [26:05] in that story that the deputy chief [26:08] nurse of NHS singing had called me up [26:09] and said there had been basically a [26:11] cover up by the government and the [26:12] department of health to stop people [26:14] knowing for months there were ambulance [26:15] delays doctors and members of public I [26:17] thought this is unacceptable. So I [26:18] exposed this. It became a massive story [26:20] BBC news and when the BBC presenter [26:22] saying Dr. Mahhatra what's going on [26:24] wrong with the NHS why is it failing why [26:26] is this happening? I said it's [26:28] multiffactorial but I said one of the [26:29] most important reasons is you failed we [26:32] failed for years to address the root [26:34] cause of what's driving stress on the [26:35] system taking on the excesses of big [26:38] food and big farmer. But I said, "Right [26:40] now, we've got um 80 to, you know, [26:44] 100,000 NHS staff who are refusing to [26:46] have the COVID vaccine. This would be a [26:49] crisis. They're going to lose their [26:50] jobs. This is this mandate needs to be [26:52] overturned. It's not scientific. It's [26:53] not ethical." So, I got I got that into [26:55] the mainstream and ultimately we end up [26:57] overturning, right? The the the um the [26:59] mandate. Um but there was a backlash, [27:03] Steve, behind the scenes. And I've not [27:05] been public about this before, so I'm [27:06] going to tell you this for the first [27:07] time because I think it's time I I tell [27:09] this story. Shortly after me going on GB [27:12] News as a doctor who'd had the vaccine, [27:15] had been on Good Morning Britain to say [27:16] it was likely safe and effective to then [27:19] talking about we should maybe look into [27:21] this and maybe pause the situation [27:22] because of um these heart issues that [27:25] need to be investigated. I received an [27:28] email from the Royal College of [27:30] Physicians, this is the oldest medical [27:32] institution in the world, saying, "Dr. [27:34] Dr. Mahhatra um we have received a [27:36] number of anonymous complaints from [27:39] other fellows [27:41] that you uh in reference to my GB news [27:43] interview that you are spreading antiax [27:47] misinformation [27:49] and you've got four weeks to respond to [27:51] this and they were saying all the [27:52] different sanctions that could happen [27:54] because of me doing this right Steve at [27:57] that point I thought if we are going to [27:59] get a pause on this vaccine and really [28:01] investigate it it's because of such an [28:03] IND indoctrination because so many [28:05] people, billions of people around the [28:06] world have taken this and therefore the [28:09] the the battle to expose it is going to [28:12] be harder than anything I've ever done. [28:14] The only way in my only chance is to get [28:17] it published in a peer-reviewed journal [28:18] and then to get it into the news. I [28:21] spent 9 months at that stage literally [28:23] eating, breathing, sleeping, speaking to [28:25] two FISA whistleblowers, speaking to [28:28] eminent scientists in expertise I didn't [28:30] have around immunology and vaccine [28:31] development. Of course, I had the [28:34] understanding of cardiology, you know, [28:35] better than anybody in in this [28:37] particular field, in this particular [28:38] area. And when I did that research and [28:42] looked at it, I first of all concluded [28:45] that there absolutely needs to be a [28:47] suspension of the vaccine because um [28:50] what happened by the summer of 2022 and [28:53] this is actually the the most crucial [28:55] and important piece of data on its own [28:57] which should have been enough to suspend [28:58] it and actually suggest that it probably [29:01] shouldn't have been rolled out in the [29:02] first place is that those trials that [29:05] were done by Fiser and Madna which led [29:08] to the all the media reports 95 100% [29:11] effective um you know the approval by [29:14] the regulator the roll out the coercion [29:16] the mandates they were reanalyzed by [29:19] some very eminent scientists including [29:21] the associate editor the BMJ the one of [29:24] the world's top epidemiologists and they [29:26] published in the journal vaccine which [29:28] is the premier journal for vaccines and [29:30] they were able to get new data that was [29:33] made available on health Canada's [29:34] website and the FDA in America's website [29:37] and what they did in their reanalysis of [29:38] the original highquality clinical trials [29:41] is they found Steve you were more likely [29:45] to suffer serious harm from taking the [29:47] vaccine at a rate of 1 in 800 that meant [29:50] hospitalization disability or a [29:52] life-changing event than you were to be [29:54] hospitalized with COVID and this is [29:56] during the early phase right this is [29:58] during the most most lethal strain [30:00] for all age groups [30:01] yes well absolutely well they put all [30:03] age groups together so on average in all [30:06] age groups that's a very good question [30:08] um but what's missing is that actually [30:10] okay is there a benefit that's greater [30:13] than harm in certain age groups but we [30:15] can indirectly answer that in a second [30:17] so that was the original trial so on [30:18] average it was more harmful than [30:20] beneficial okay but even before talking [30:23] about all age groups Steve a 1 in 800 [30:26] harm rate for a vaccine is completely [30:29] unacceptable in the sense that we have [30:31] pulled other vaccines in the past for [30:34] much less harm the swine flu vaccine was [30:36] suspended globally because it was found [30:39] to cause Gillian Barry syndrome a [30:41] debilitating neurological condition in [30:43] one in a 100,000 people. Rotovirus [30:46] vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it [30:48] was found to cause a form of bowel [30:49] obstruction in children at 1 in 10,000. [30:52] So you've already got a harm rate of [30:54] 1800 irrespective of right. So that [30:56] first and foremost should be a red flag [30:58] to say hold on this is this is too much. [31:00] When they say harm rate how do they [31:01] what's the the range of definitions of [31:04] harm? Well, in this one they categorize [31:06] serious harm as it caused you to be [31:08] hospitalized. [31:09] Yeah. [31:10] It caused a disability. [31:12] Okay. [31:12] Or something that was life-changing. [31:13] Now, of course, that can incorporate [31:15] lots of different things, but of those, [31:17] and I spoke to the lead researcher I [31:18] know work with him on other things, um [31:21] 40% of those serious harms were actually [31:23] related to clotting disorders like lung [31:25] clots, heart attacks, etc. [31:27] I want to make sure I'm super clear here [31:28] because I don't understand um the the [31:31] data you're citing. So you're saying [31:32] that they found that one in 800 people [31:34] would have serious harm or harm. [31:37] Uh serious harm. [31:38] Serious harm. Serious. [31:39] One in 800 people had [31:40] in the trials. One in 800. Yeah. One in [31:42] 800. Serious harm. Right now just to [31:45] give you perspective so you can balance [31:47] it out just because this is important. [31:48] It's a question you've asked is really [31:50] important. um we didn't have any good [31:53] real world data at that point on [31:57] can we separate vaccinated from [31:59] unvaccinated to look at what the [32:02] hospitalization rate would be for COVID [32:04] for example in people who took the [32:06] vaccine versus the people that didn't [32:07] according to age group that data in the [32:10] whole world the only country to get make [32:12] that data available was the UK and they [32:14] did that in the beginning of uh 2023 so [32:18] January last year and What did that [32:21] show? After two doses of the FISA [32:23] vaccine, Steve, if you were over 70, so [32:26] this is the highest risk group, you had [32:28] to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one [32:34] person being hospitalized with COVID. [32:37] And this was with the different strain, [32:38] the omnicom strain, because the original [32:40] strain was [32:41] Yeah, it was they didn't Yeah, it was. [32:43] You're right. It was with the Omicron [32:44] strain. So that was still, but it gave [32:46] us a ballpark figure that even that. So [32:47] it's like it's like so say a patient [32:49] comes to me and says doc what are the [32:51] benefits of this drug as a prevention [32:52] whatever else and I say to them well if [32:54] you take this there's a one in 2,500 [32:57] chance it will help you prevent you [32:58] being hospitalized I'll be honest with [33:00] you Steve I mean in medicine in all the [33:03] drugs I've used and all the data I know [33:05] about different medications and heart [33:07] disease etc that figure I mean it's a [33:10] very serious issue but that figure is a [33:11] joke I mean there's nothing of that of [33:13] such poor and then when you get under [33:15] the a when you get to people under the [33:16] age of say uh 50 you're talking about [33:19] having to vaccinate maybe several [33:21] hundred thousand to prevent one one [33:23] is that relevant for that the first [33:24] strain of co as well because or do we [33:26] not have the data on that because [33:28] we don't have that data on that we do in [33:30] my paper which I published actually we [33:31] did have some data on delta and if I [33:33] remember correctly the data on the over [33:35] 70s the there's also problems with this [33:38] a little bit because it's not corrected [33:39] for other factors such as social [33:42] economics etc risk factors of you that [33:44] [snorts] might make people more [33:45] vulnerable So, if I remember correctly [33:47] from that paper, if you're over 70, that [33:49] was about 1 in 250. Delta was the worst [33:51] strain, actually. So, about 1 in 250. [33:53] Okay. [33:54] On the British Heart Foundation website, [33:55] I'm sure you've read this. Um, [33:57] just to read out what they say on there, [34:00] it says that up to one in 10,000 people [34:03] with the FISA vaccine might experience [34:06] are at risk of mo myocarditis or [34:09] pericarditis. [34:11] Have I pronounced that correctly? Yeah. [34:12] Up to one in 10,000 people for the Madna [34:15] vaccine. And uh it's not possible to [34:17] estimate other vaccines because they're [34:18] not frequently used in the UK. All three [34:21] of these COVID 19 vaccines are mRNA [34:24] vaccines designed to target the omnicon [34:26] omnicom strain. And at the top of this [34:28] it says the risk of myocarditis or [34:30] pericarditis after covid-19 vaccine is [34:32] very low. How do you respond to that? Do [34:35] you think you agree with that? [34:36] No, I don't agree with it at all. I [34:38] think there are a number of layers to [34:39] respond to this. I think the first thing [34:40] to say Steve is the British Art [34:43] Foundation with the greatest respect to [34:44] them and they do a lot of good work [34:45] overall is still part of the so-called [34:48] establishment which has been blinded for [34:51] years to actually even address so many [34:54] issues on health when it doesn't uh suit [34:58] the interests of big farmer and and and [35:00] I can say that categorically because I [35:02] know one of the the the chief advisor uh [35:06] uh to heart disease um for the British [35:08] Heart Foundation with the greatest [35:10] respect to him is a guy called professor [35:11] Rory Collins um University of Oxford and [35:15] they have said similar things when it [35:17] comes to statin drugs which we'll talk [35:18] about later um but that person the [35:21] people who advise them are people who [35:22] are heavily funded and linked to pharma [35:25] taking their institutions taking [35:26] hundreds of millions for example so [35:28] there's a huge bias there to start with [35:30] that's the first thing but it for me [35:33] what the British Heart Foundation are [35:34] not doing is actually countering and I [35:37] would love them to counter that cuz I'm [35:39] very open for the debate here is that [35:41] you've got a reanalysis of and they know [35:43] this the best way of determining serious [35:46] harm from any drug is actually looking [35:49] one of the best ways is the highest [35:50] quality level of evidence which is the [35:52] randomized control trials which is what [35:54] led to the approval when you've got an [35:56] independent reanalysis in a [35:57] peer-reviewed journal saying more harm [35:59] than good from the beginning that in [36:01] itself and and then we look at real [36:02] world data Steve there's so many other [36:04] bits of data that they are ignoring [36:06] basically to answer your question [36:08] they're ignoring ing lots of other data [36:10] which is very clear whether it's autopsy [36:12] data whether it's other studies that [36:13] came out of Israel that showed for [36:15] example this was published in a journal [36:17] called nature scientific reports and [36:19] again they ignore this they don't talk [36:20] about it so it's it's like hold on guys [36:22] this is you're ignoring you're not even [36:24] mentioning this data they showed and [36:26] this is really most disturbing in 2021 [36:30] there was a 25% increase in heart [36:32] attacks and or cardiac arrests in people [36:36] aged between 16 and 39 which was [36:40] associated with the COVID vaccine but [36:42] not associated with COVID. [36:45] How do they how do they tease out I was [36:47] thinking about um you know the increase [36:49] in heart related conditions around the [36:52] pandemic and following the pandemic and [36:54] in in much of your work and I think in [36:55] this book I can't actually pronounce the [36:57] word pop diet. Pop diet, [36:58] the Popey diet. You talk about how these [37:00] other sort of lifestyle factors like [37:02] community, friendships, relationships, [37:04] stress, mental health, being sedentary, [37:06] sedentary, all of these things can [37:08] contribute to heart problems. So when I [37:10] think about the pandemic, I go, people [37:12] weren't seeing their friends. We were [37:13] stressed more than ever. People were [37:14] losing their jobs. They were furoughed. [37:16] Um they had mental health, you know, we [37:18] saw the mental health uh stats explode. [37:21] Yeah. [37:21] Um [37:22] all the factors there that are linked to [37:25] heart disease. So, how do we know that [37:27] it it wasn't th those factors of the [37:29] pandemic that caused an increase in [37:31] heart related issues and how do how can [37:33] we tease that out from the the vaccine? [37:35] Really good question. Um because [37:37] remember I also said that early on [37:39] before I realized the vaccine might be [37:40] playing a role. I actually thought that [37:42] was that was the most likely explanation [37:44] of the increased heart attacks, lockdown [37:45] stress, poor diet, etc. [37:47] You'd expect to see an increase in [37:48] you would you would and I think it has [37:49] played a role, Steve, for sure it has [37:51] played a role. But then when you look at [37:53] the quality of data to say how much of a [37:55] role that's played that it it's on a [38:00] different level when you look at the [38:02] vaccine when you look at the plausible [38:04] mechanism you look at the types of [38:05] people that are dying young people and [38:07] stuff like that it doesn't fit. Um I'll [38:10] be honest my personal view it is a [38:11] primary driver without any shadow of a [38:13] doubt in my mind and a personal view of [38:14] the excess deaths. As a scientist, I'll [38:17] say it's a likely significant [38:18] contributing factor, but probably the [38:20] most likely because another aspect to [38:24] all of this is what we call [38:24] pharmarmaccovigilance reports. So these [38:27] are reports that are done by members of [38:30] the public when they they have an [38:32] adverse reaction to any drug and it's [38:34] not easy to fill in. You fill in these [38:35] what we call yellow card scheme. You can [38:37] get it online and you send it off to [38:39] your doctor or to you know the [38:40] regulator. those reports and I've [38:43] throughout my career I've never seen the [38:45] extent like for example I'll give you an [38:47] example um after 9.7 million doses of [38:50] the Astrogenica vaccine which was [38:52] ultimately pulled right astrogenica of [38:54] course was also one of the co vaccines [38:56] there were 800,000 in this country [38:58] 800,000 yellow card reports now some of [39:00] them um are not going to be serious [39:02] serious but people don't fill in a [39:05] yellow card report if you've had a bit [39:06] of a fever after having a vaccine [39:08] they've felt quite ill ill enough to [39:10] that's already and then within at it's [39:12] estimated maybe one in five of those [39:14] from other data would suggest serious [39:16] harm. So other data from reporting and [39:19] with the so with about I think 30 [39:21] million doses if it was probably about [39:22] 30 million doses of FISA we had about [39:25] 500,000 yellow card reports in this [39:26] country right which is still a lot you [39:28] know that's one in 60 yellow card [39:30] reports now they're all not going to be [39:31] super serious hospitalization death [39:33] whatever else um but when you put all of [39:36] the data together Steve that it paints a [39:39] picture that makes it look as clear as a [39:42] day that anybody doubting you know it [39:46] should the the evidence should be this [39:48] is the primary cause of the excess [39:50] deaths until proven otherwise. That's [39:51] the level of evidence, Steve, but it's [39:53] just being ignored. It's being ignored [39:55] and I can talk about why it's being [39:56] ignored. [39:57] One of the things I've been sort of gaps [40:00] in my head that I've been keen to fill [40:01] is do you believe that if we hadn't have [40:06] introduced the vaccine, more or less [40:08] people would have survived CO? Because [40:10] I've got close friends of mine that got [40:11] COVID and I watched them go from very [40:14] healthy looking people to basically [40:15] skeletons. Good friend actually good [40:16] friend one of the CEOs of my company his [40:18] dad went from being a very healthy man [40:20] to being basically looking like a [40:22] skeleton and almost died. And then I've [40:24] got I know of other people that did die. [40:26] So I think in the grand scheme of things [40:28] when we think about um vaccines was it a [40:31] net positive that we had a vaccine? [40:34] There is from everything I know now I've [40:37] slowly and reluctantly come to the [40:40] conclusion that the COVID vaccine [40:43] introduction has had a catastrophic [40:47] overall net negative effect on the [40:51] population and society. And one of the [40:54] re and and let me just caveat this [40:56] because you've mentioned the fact that [40:58] people suffered from COVID and I'm not [41:00] denying that. I've got patients, Steve, [41:02] that I see that have had long CO that [41:04] weren't vaccinated, okay? And have [41:06] suffered quite badly. [41:08] Most of the most serious aspects of [41:10] COVID happened early on in 2020 and [41:15] predominantly affected the elderly. [41:16] We've got all of that data now that's [41:18] been reanalyzed by one of the world's [41:19] top scientists. And even looking back [41:22] now, essentially if you were under 70, [41:25] even from the beginning, your risk of [41:28] serious harm from COVID is in the [41:31] ballpark figure of the flu, right? And [41:33] even I actually was wrong. I wrote an [41:35] article in European scientist in Mar in [41:39] April 2020 because I actually initially [41:42] started making a lot of noise about why [41:44] we not talking about lifestyle with [41:45] COVID to help people mitigate, you know, [41:47] the immune improve their immune system. [41:49] And I said, you know, talking to um a [41:52] friend of mine who works in the busiest [41:54] DR in America in in New York who I've [41:56] done work with and he said, it seemed [41:58] this is I've never seen anything like [41:59] this is devastating. Some of my [42:00] colleagues are dying. So I have no doubt [42:02] that at the very beginning in the early [42:04] strain of the virus, it was really bad [42:06] especially for vulnerable people, people [42:08] with obesity, etc. [42:09] Cuz you know I I I remember getting CO I [42:11] was actually used to live on the top [42:12] floor of this building and I remember [42:14] I've never experienced anything quite as [42:16] bizarre as the symptom set that I had [42:18] when I got CO. The fact that at 3:00 [42:19] a.m. in the morning, I don't take [42:20] medicine. So, fact [snorts] at 3:00 a.m. [42:22] in the morning, I'm lying flat on my [42:24] floor ordering ibuprofen on Uber Eats [42:26] because my back I just had the most [42:29] bizarre like back pain. And so, I was [42:32] having to like lie flat on the floor cuz [42:34] I couldn't even lie in bed. It was so [42:35] bad. [42:36] Just this weird set of symptoms that I'd [42:38] never had before. My my partner, she [42:39] lost her smell and taste. And [42:41] it was so unusual. It was so unusual. Um [42:44] there's not been a time in my lifetime [42:45] that people have lost their smell and [42:46] taste on mass. So when I when it when [42:49] you hear it compared to the flu, you go, [42:51] "This was not the flu. This is something [42:52] different." [42:53] Yes. No, the symptoms are very [42:54] different. And I think now it's accepted [42:57] um that um and we won't go into a lot of [42:59] detail, but I think one of the reasons [43:01] as well, it was human engineered. You [43:02] know, almost certainly the evidence [43:03] points to it being a lab leak, right? So [43:05] it had a very You're right. It was very [43:07] different to any other virus [43:08] that used to be a conspiracy theory. [43:11] I know, right? [43:11] Now it's not a conspiracy theory. [43:13] [laughter] [43:13] I know. I know. Exactly. [43:14] It's funny. Yeah. when you heard about [43:15] that that that lab in Wuhan that were [43:17] messing around with viruses [laughter] [43:18] and then we we decided to put the blame [43:20] on like a market store but I think now [43:21] the general consensus is that it [43:23] probably came from that lab in Wuhan. [43:25] Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. And [43:26] I've spoken to in fact I I spent time [43:28] with actually the scientists that first [43:29] went public with it who identified it um [43:32] guy in America sorry in Australia. Um so [43:35] yeah that came from lab but so I think [43:38] it had these different strange things [43:39] loss of smell etc. But in terms of [43:40] serious illness, um it was there at the [43:43] beginning. Now when you when you look [43:44] back, I think essentially there were [43:47] vulnerable elderly but uh you know who [43:49] who suffered um especially people in [43:51] nursing homes with a lot of deaths [43:53] there. But there's so many other [43:55] components to this. So one is did we [43:57] institute the correct treatments? A lot [43:59] of people were killed because they [44:01] weren't managed properly in ITU, you [44:02] know, in terms of putting people [44:04] incubating them, putting on respirators [44:06] when they didn't need it. And that in [44:07] itself has a risk. um some of the wrong [44:09] treatments were given. There were other [44:11] treatments now that we look back that [44:13] probably would have been helpful things [44:14] like ivormectin which I know has been a [44:16] bit controversial but um was very it's a [44:18] very safer than paracetamol right so [44:20] first do no harm okay um but it may have [44:22] done some good and a lot of people and [44:24] doctors around the world that used it in [44:25] several thousand there's a doctor in [44:27] South Africa that used it in 14,000 [44:28] patients including many elderly not a [44:30] single one died from co and this is [44:32] early on so all these things that we [44:34] missed we miss a lifestyle intervention [44:36] so all those things are there but by the [44:38] time you get to the end of 2020 the [44:39] beginning of 2021 on there are so many [44:41] things that happened Steve that you have [44:42] to think about before you introduce a [44:44] vaccine. One is what is the state of the [44:45] virus right now um and it had already [44:48] mutated to some degree and become less [44:50] lethal. There is natural immunity which [44:52] we know is very powerful right um and [44:56] but the issue with the vaccine is and [44:59] certainly it was probably there from the [45:01] beginning. We know that when one looks [45:03] at the original trials there was a and [45:06] this is what the drug companies have [45:07] doing for a long long period of time. [45:09] They will mislead people using [45:11] statistics about the benefits. So use [45:14] something called relative risk [45:15] reduction. Let me just explain this [45:17] because you can apply this to statins as [45:18] well. Is they presented the benefit as a [45:22] 95% protection against infection. [45:24] Remember that figure 95% right? And it [45:27] was what we call relative risk [45:28] reduction. So [45:31] if you've got for example two groups in [45:33] a trial, say 100 in one trial in in in [45:36] in one group and 100 in another and [45:38] let's just say let's give you an example [45:40] of statins and you're you're following [45:42] them up over 5 years to look at a drug [45:44] to see if it benefits them in preventing [45:45] having a heart attack. [45:48] In one group they get the dummy pill [45:50] um and you follow them up over five [45:52] years. And in the people that got the [45:53] dummy pill, in fact you didn't do [45:54] anything different, two of them suffered [45:56] a heart attack. [45:58] In the other group, the other hundred [46:00] people that were followed up over five [46:01] years who got the pill, the the drug, [46:04] right, only one suffered a heart attack. [46:07] So you've reduced the heart attack risk [46:09] by 50%. Right? Two to one, right? 50%. [46:13] But you've only prevented one heart [46:15] attack. You've treated 100 people, but [46:16] you've prevented one heart attack out of [46:18] treating 100. Yeah. Does that make [46:19] sense? So that's a 1% absolute benefit. [46:22] In other words, when you explain that to [46:24] a patient, when I ask when I have engage [46:26] in sort of what we call informed [46:28] consent, shared decision-making, when [46:30] they ask me about drug, I'll say, "This [46:31] gives you a 1% chance if you take this [46:34] drug religiously of preventing a heart [46:35] attack." Now, you you apply that to the [46:37] original COVID vaccine trials, which by [46:39] the way have so many other problems with [46:41] them because even those trials were [46:44] conducted and analyzed and designed by [46:46] the drug industry. I mean this is one of [46:47] the biggest myths that needs to be [46:49] busted Steve out there for most doctors [46:51] um as well as members of the public [46:52] medical knowledge is under commercial [46:54] control but most people don't know that. [46:57] So what happens is they did the trial [46:59] but let's just talk about what the [47:00] results their their results showed us a [47:03] 95% relative risk reduction against [47:05] infection. They didn't show any [47:07] reduction in uh co death by the way in [47:09] that trial right they just said prevent [47:11] from infection but we then presume it [47:13] may then prevent right uh reduce death [47:14] rates absolute risk reduction from [47:17] infection at the beginning was one was [47:21] 0.84%. [47:24] One in 119 [47:27] so that's how many people you need to [47:28] vaccinate to prevent one infection which [47:30] actually people were not told that. So [47:32] imagine you're thinking, should I take [47:33] this vaccine? Say, well Steve, there's a [47:35] one less than 1% chance that it's going [47:37] to prevent you getting infected. People [47:38] weren't told that. [47:39] But but that it then reduce my chance of [47:42] getting seriously ill. Right. [47:43] No, but we've then talked about that, [47:44] haven't we? Like as in when you look at [47:45] the data certainly beginning of 2023 [47:48] that was looking over the previous year, [47:49] 2022, you have to vaccinate 2,500 people [47:53] to prevent one person getting seriously [47:55] ill with COVID, right? If you're over 70 [47:57] with the second with the other strain, [47:58] but [47:58] with the other strain and it may have [47:59] been better, Steve, you're right. It may [48:01] it probably was better but it still [48:02] numbers are still much smaller than what [48:04] people were led to believe. And and by [48:05] the way Steve the narrative at the [48:08] beginning they kept changing the [48:09] goalpost. Remember it wasn't about [48:10] preventing serious illness and death. It [48:11] was all about preventing infection. You [48:13] are not in America you've seen it all [48:15] over CNN Rachel Madau and she's saying [48:18] it so passionately. If you take this [48:21] vaccine you are not going to get COVID [48:23] and calling anyone who who questions it [48:26] being a science deny. I mean Jesus [48:28] Christ. So my last question on that [48:30] before I I say I was going to say is um [48:32] do you think there would have been less [48:36] deaths overall [48:38] if we hadn't have had a vaccine? [48:40] Yes. [48:41] You think there would have been less [48:41] deaths [48:42] by now when you look at it. So I think [48:44] over time so so where we are now [48:46] start [48:48] um [48:49] so if we hadn't have introduced the [48:51] vaccine for that first strain of co you [48:52] think there'd be less deaths. [48:54] Okay. If I was to I still think that [48:59] if okay this is very nuanced but [49:02] important. [49:04] If the vaccine had only been offered to [49:09] the high-risisk people at the beginning, [49:12] say the over 70s or people with multiple [49:14] risk factors, [snorts] [49:15] I think there is a case to be made, [49:18] right? I'm going to counter that in a [49:19] minute though. But there is a case to be [49:20] made that there was overall benefit [49:23] versus harm. But there's a problem. One, [49:26] there wasn't true informed consent, [49:29] right? Because those figures, those [49:30] numbers weren't given to pay people [49:31] about the prevention of infection, etc., [49:33] Right. Um and two, if you have an [49:37] average serious harm rate of 1 in 800, [49:39] any scientist, even regulators would [49:42] have said, "Hold on a minute. This is [49:44] way too high. This is too risky." And [49:46] this is, by the way, Steve, only the [49:47] short-term. Because remember, this [49:49] vaccine didn't go through what other [49:50] vaccines have gone through, which is 5 [49:52] to 10 years of safety testing. [49:54] [snorts] [49:54] So if you throw all those caveats in and [49:57] use informed consent, I can guarantee [50:00] you with all of my knowledge, expertise, [50:03] experience with patients when you engage [50:05] in these conversations, most of those [50:07] elderly people will probably still [50:09] refused it. But but but yes, I think [50:12] there is a case to be made that the the [50:14] benefits may have outweighed the harms [50:16] in those high-risisk people at the very [50:18] beginning in the short term. Absolutely. [50:20] You know, when I think about Rachel [50:22] Maddau and what she said on TV about, [50:24] you know, that it's going to stop the [50:25] spread of infection, etc., I can have a [50:30] degree of empathy [50:31] because if that's the information you're [50:33] being fed and you are a public-f facing [50:36] broadcaster [50:37] and it's being fed to you by scientists [50:40] and it's been fed to you by the NHS and [50:42] whoever else and you know, very credible [50:44] people that you've been raised to [50:46] believe and to trust. If you're a public [50:48] facing broadcaster, what else are you [50:50] going to say? You're not going to say [50:50] the opposite. You're not you can't sit [50:52] on the fence. Your job is to broadcast. [50:54] It's the news, right? So I I have and I [50:56] think you did the same. You said earlier [50:57] you went on Good Morning Britain or [50:59] something and [50:59] and I'm not blaming Rachel Mad here. I'm [51:01] just saying that the indoctrination that [51:03] came through the mainstream media was so [51:04] strong through people like Rachel Maddo. [51:06] And why is that important, Steve? I had [51:08] a conversation with the chairman of the [51:09] British Medical Association in December [51:11] 2021 when I was campaigning to overturn [51:15] vaccine mandates for healthcare workers. [51:17] He had access to Saji Javid. I had a [51:19] previous uh rapport with Matt Hanok but [51:21] he had obviously left by then. Um and I [51:24] spoke to his name Shan Nagpaul and I [51:26] explained him everything I knew about [51:27] the vaccine after looking at data at [51:30] that point. I hadn't published at this [51:31] point but I went through it in in in in [51:32] a logical way. chairman of the BMA, by [51:35] the way, not just some random person. [51:37] And he said, "Asim, [51:39] no one appears to have critically [51:41] appraised the evidence on the vaccine as [51:42] well as you have from our two-hour chat. [51:44] Most of my colleagues [51:47] who are in senior policy, you know, [51:49] medical positions, establishment [51:50] positions are getting their information [51:52] on the benefits and harms of the vaccine [51:54] from the BBC." [51:56] It's it's super difficult. [51:57] Isn't that extraordinary, though? I [51:58] think it's really difficult because if I [52:01] if you're dealing with lots of people [52:02] dying on mass and it's happened very [52:05] very quickly and people are just [52:07] dropping dead and you're seeing you know [52:09] hospitals being overrun, [52:12] you've got to [52:14] you got to tread carefully with the [52:16] information you're putting out there. [52:17] So, if the scientific information comes [52:19] in early and maybe a little bit too too [52:20] soon before it's really been vetted and [52:22] triple checked, saying one thing [52:26] and you're desperate for answers, I can [52:28] I can see why a group of people would [52:29] say, "Okay, this is the best [52:30] information." And then to go against [52:32] that information could potentially cause [52:34] tons of harm. So, I can also imagine why [52:36] a group of people would be really slow [52:38] to then change their mind away from that [52:40] because you're dealing with like [52:42] Steve, I was that person, too. So, I'm [52:43] with you on that 100%. I think where I'm [52:45] taking this is the system if it had been [52:48] more transparent early on and this is [52:51] where I've been, you know, banging my, [52:54] you know, head against a brick wall to [52:55] some degree for about a decade. If there [52:58] was more transparency in the system, we [52:59] would have had better information even [53:01] from the beginning. But that information [53:02] was kept commercially confidential [53:05] because of the system that really is [53:08] geared towards uh supporting the [53:10] interests of big farmer not in the [53:12] interest of people's health and that and [53:13] and if that and that's the key point [53:15] here right this is we're looking back [53:17] over time think how did this happen how [53:19] do we allow this to happen we need to go [53:20] deeper say how do we stop this happening [53:22] again in the future so we have better [53:23] information that's all I'm saying [53:25] do you think it is malicious at like a [53:27] government level do you think [53:28] no [53:28] you don't think it is [53:29] not at all I um know many politicians uh [53:33] very senior people um cross party uh [53:36] some of them I call my friends uh many [53:38] of them come to me for medical advice [53:40] right um in fact one of them uh you know [53:42] he lost 100 pounds on my POPY diet with [53:44] Tom Watson the deputy leader of the [53:46] Labour party right [53:47] so um and and and these genuinely by and [53:50] large are decent people that want to do [53:51] the right thing but they are also fed [53:54] you know misinformation by lobbyists [53:56] they take as expert opinion or [53:58] information stuff that has been created [54:01] for the purposes of the interest of big [54:03] food or big farmer. you know, when I um [54:05] campaigned on you getting the sugar tax [54:07] introduced, you know, I wrote articles [54:09] in the BMJ and I started ranging every [54:11] newspaper and I remember I thought we're [54:13] going to win this because the front page [54:14] of the Daily Mail was sugar is a new [54:16] tobacco and that put pressure on the [54:19] then secretary Jeremy Hunt because the [54:20] male then decided they were going to go [54:22] right and of course you know that [54:24] government conservative government are [54:25] particularly you know influenced by what [54:27] the Daily Mail writes because they [54:29] traditionally one of their supporters [54:31] but there was a story around that time [54:34] where they exposed and it was on the [54:35] front page that government ministers in [54:37] terms of obesity strategy, how do we [54:40] solve the obesity epidemic had had 99 [54:43] meetings with representatives of the [54:46] food industry and not a single meeting [54:48] with a public health doctor for example. [54:51] So I know how that hap that obviously [54:53] that the system should be more [54:54] transparent to make sure that they [54:56] understand that those those politicians [54:57] but many of them um were shocked you [55:00] know when I when I told them this [55:01] information they trust me um one of them [55:04] you know was a very a former government [55:06] minister who who said it seem you know [55:08] this is she's shocked by it but like now [55:10] understands it they they were captured [55:12] as well but we were all we were in a [55:13] state of fear Steve as well we let's not [55:15] underestimate that at the very beginning [55:16] we were all scared we didn't know what [55:17] we were dealing with and of course we [55:18] have to have empathy for ourselves when [55:20] you're in a state of fear right for all [55:23] be you know I think it was a big error [55:26] to some degree and everybody was scared [55:28] and I don't think it was malicious to [55:29] create that fear initially [55:31] um it stops us you know being being able [55:35] psychologically it inhibits your ability [55:37] to engage in critical thinking and all [55:39] of us were in that position is there a [55:41] risk now that if there was a deadly vac [55:44] deadly virus that broke out across the [55:45] world people are so scared of vaccines [55:48] now that they would not go and get it [55:52] because there something I was saying to [55:54] my friend the other day I was like we've [55:55] gotten to a point now where I think so [55:56] many people are skeptical about vaccines [55:59] that if if something does come from [56:00] another lab somewhere and it is really [56:03] fatal and the government stand on that [56:05] podium again and say hands face or [56:08] whatever it was that slogan and they say [56:10] um we need you to all go get this [56:12] vaccine [56:14] who's going to go get it [56:15] yeah no I I agree I don't like that [56:18] situation I don't want us to be in this [56:19] situ situation. But you're right, there [56:21] is [56:21] and there will be another pandemic. [56:22] There there is a big risk and um the way [56:25] around that is and this is what we're [56:28] taught as doctors, [56:29] right? It's one of the things that is [56:30] ingrained into us as a medical school um [56:34] is that when you make a mistake, you [56:37] tell the patient. [56:39] Patients are very forgiving if they [56:42] think and know that you acted from a [56:44] place of good intent cuz mistakes [56:47] happen, things go wrong. this is what we [56:49] need as a MIA culpa right I was willing [56:53] to do that I mean in some way I was [56:55] partly responsible certainly at the very [56:57] early stage to support a vaccine roll [56:59] out but I know that the most important [57:03] thing for me to do when new information [57:04] comes available and medicine again is [57:06] not an exact science it evolves [57:09] but let's play that out let's play that [57:10] out so if we do if we had a situation [57:12] where the I don't know the scientist [57:14] that said really positive things about [57:16] the vaccine that it was side effect free [57:18] or whatever They come out now and they [57:20] say, "We were totally wrong." And they [57:22] say, "We got it." So, so let's let's [57:24] play out that scenario. What would [57:25] happen the next day on social media is [57:28] everybody who was criticized or [57:30] critiqued or lost their job or was, I [57:32] don't know, in some way penalized for [57:35] their views that there might be side [57:36] effects that we're not talking about, [57:38] would immediately go to their their base [57:40] of their audience and say, "I told you [57:42] so." the conspiracy theorists on the [57:45] internet who are really extreme that [57:47] believe that there's a group of people [57:48] wearing like tin hats that have come up [57:50] with this idea, they would be empowered [57:53] and what you'd then have is a situation [57:55] where another vac another pandemic rolls [57:58] in from a far away land. those people [58:00] said, "Listen, you know, those people [58:02] that you see what I'm to say it it would [58:05] in my mind it would fuel the um the [58:09] narrative that vaccines are bad and less [58:12] like people would be less likely to take [58:13] them because we're not driven by facts, [58:16] stats, graphs, and figures. We're driven [58:17] by emotion." [58:18] Y [58:19] it's much more powerful [58:20] than just if a scientist standing there [58:22] and showing me a graph. It's how I feel [58:24] which matters the most. And if I felt [58:26] like I was betrayed and lied to, there's [58:28] no chance that I'd run down and get [58:30] another jab or something in my arm. [58:34] It's an uncomfortable truth that needs [58:35] facing though, Steve, because if we [58:36] don't face it, these problems are going [58:38] to carry on. We're not going to improve [58:39] the situation by ignoring it and [58:41] sweeping under the carpet. So, there [58:43] will be that, you're right, there will [58:44] be that backlash. I myself have had [58:46] that, right? I've had people, you know, [58:48] I I got heckled, you know, um a talk I [58:51] gave on this for the first time when I [58:53] spoke at it in London, um saying, "I was [58:55] part of it all. You're a liar." All this [58:57] stuff. Yeah, absolutely. I I got, you [58:59] know, exploiters were thrown at me. And [59:01] I I understand where that emotion comes [59:02] from. But at the end of the day, the [59:04] only way we can progress and evolve is [59:05] it just accepting. But that, you know, [59:09] because we want to then it's not just [59:10] about saying we got this wrong. It's [59:12] actually explaining to people and [59:13] saying, "Okay, we thought we were doing [59:15] the right thing. These are problems in [59:17] the system we weren't aware of. Most [59:18] people are not aware of this. We need to [59:20] resolve this and move forward with [59:21] greater transparency. And over time now, [59:24] okay, within the immediate aftermath, of [59:26] course, there's going to be that [59:27] emotional reaction. There's going to be [59:28] a backlash if there happen to be a [59:30] pandemic within a short space of time [59:32] after that admission. Yes, it may well [59:34] be that people aren't going to go and [59:35] take vaccines. But why should they, [59:37] Steve? [59:38] Vaccines are can save your life. [59:40] No, no, no. I'm talking about a new [59:41] anything new. I'm not talking about So, [59:42] yes, absolutely. Traditional vaccines. I [59:44] mean, I'm still a big subscriber and [59:46] supporter, let me just make this clear, [59:48] of traditional vaccines. In my paper [59:49] that I wrote, I said, you know, [59:50] estimates suggest vaccines have saved 4 [59:52] to 5 million lives a year. And the [59:54] serious harm rate of vaccines, I think [59:56] there's, of course, there's going to be [59:58] nothing's completely safe. No drug is [60:00] pharmacist completely safe. But just in [60:02] terms of published data, right, probably [60:04] still an exaggeration, but still it [60:05] gives you it gives you a comparison. [60:07] Serious harm rate for traditional [60:08] vaccines, 1 to two per million. [60:11] All right. [snorts] [60:11] People aren't very people aren't very [60:13] smart, though. including me when it [60:15] comes to when I hear the word vaccine I [60:17] think all vaccines you think we don't [60:18] know what a vaccine is so it's just a [60:20] word it's like if you said to me dogs [60:23] are savaging one in 800 people you know [60:27] the average person isn't might not [60:28] [laughter] the average person might not [60:30] think if that's a chihuahua or like a [60:31] German shepherd we just heard dogs and [60:33] then there's going to be a fear of dogs [60:35] and I think the same with the vaccines [60:36] we don't know the difference between [60:37] different vaccines we just think they're [60:38] all the same so if you tell me that [60:39] vaccines are causing x y and zed I'm [60:42] going to go I don't Yeah. If someone [60:43] offers me a flu shot or whatever thing [60:45] or whatever, it's the trust that's been [60:47] eroded in the system and it's my trust [60:49] in the word vaccine that's been eroded. [60:51] Yeah. No. And it's it's unfortunate. [60:52] It's unfortunate that that that has [60:54] definitely showed. There has been a dent [60:55] and a change I think an uptake of things [60:57] like MMR [60:59] because of this. [61:00] It saved my life when I was a kid. I got [61:02] my all my family got malaria. We were in [61:03] Africa so [61:04] they all got pretty bad malaria and uh [61:07] so we yeah my pretty pretty serious as [61:09] well. I think I almost died of uh [61:11] malaria I hear from my mother. [61:13] Steve the thing is with doial vaccines [61:15] they went through many many years of [61:17] safety checks right and this is an [61:19] important thing people I think we [61:21] shouldn't underestimate people's [61:23] intelligence and their ability to [61:26] understand and forgive as long as we [61:28] communicate it in the right way. I have [61:30] these conversations all the time with my [61:31] patients. You know I give them numbers. [61:33] I talk through it. When I talk about [61:34] statin drugs for example I say I'm going [61:36] to give you these numbers but there are [61:38] lots of caveats here. one the data has [61:40] never been independently verified right [61:41] and I give them all this and I give them [61:43] alternatives etc I do this all the time [61:45] and patients want that they want more [61:46] information in a way that they can [61:48] understand and of course yes they want [61:50] to trust their doctor but again it's all [61:52] it comes down to ethics values intent [61:55] and doctors not admitting their mistakes [61:57] is a very very bad place to be [62:00] the chair of the clinical cardiology at [62:02] the University of Edinburgh professor [62:03] Mark Dwek commented that um on your [62:05] opinion saying the co vaccines the co [62:08] vaccine opinions you are misguided and [62:10] in fact dangerous. The vast majority of [62:11] cardiologists do not agree with your [62:13] views and they are not based on robust [62:16] science. Now, if you're someone [62:18] listening to this now, I've got your [62:20] opinion and I've got this guy's opinion, [62:22] the chair of the clinical cardiology at [62:24] the University of Edinburgh. I've got [62:25] the NHS saying that vaccines are safe [62:27] and extensively reviewed in both adults [62:29] and children and that the independent [62:30] medicines and health care products [62:32] regulatory agency is continually [62:35] monitoring the safety of COVID vaccines [62:37] and reports of side effects are very [62:39] rare. And then I've got your view. How [62:41] do I as someone that's hearing this in [62:43] this year and this in this year figure [62:45] out what to believe [62:48] because everyone's so compelling. [62:50] Everyone's got data. [62:51] Well, you just ultimately got to go with [62:52] your own intuition. Steve, who [62:54] my intuition is always going to side [62:55] with fear [62:56] because I'm a human being. [62:57] May maybe and and this stuff works. Um [63:00] I'll come on to this and this was a bit [63:01] of a hatchet job by the Guardian. [63:02] Interestingly, I've written 19 opeds for [63:05] the Guardian Observer newspaper over the [63:07] years, but you know how these how this [63:08] journalism works. They'll they'll move [63:10] on. Um a couple of things just couple of [63:12] facts to throw back at you first and [63:13] then what you've raised is really [63:15] interesting historically and something [63:16] that I've learned from this sort of [63:18] backlash. um Mark Dwek with the greatest [63:21] respect to him uh what wasn't disclosed [63:23] in the article is that he has taken [63:25] money from FISA he's he's he's you know [63:27] been funded by FISA and that's factual [63:29] you can look that up right that's one [63:30] thing so that's a bias um the more [63:33] important than that the MH which was [63:35] described as independent right yes is [63:38] not the British medical journal BMJ did [63:42] an investigation [63:44] published um in the summer of 2022 and I [63:47] presented this data uh on the on the on [63:49] the MH at the British Medical [63:51] Association annual conference where the [63:53] president of the BMA was there, the [63:55] chair of the BMA was there, right? And [63:56] they were gobsmacked and they didn't [63:59] they couldn't believe and this is why [64:00] this information is so important, these [64:02] facts so important. The MA even I was [64:04] shocked when I read this our medical [64:06] regulator in this country MH gets 86% of [64:10] its funding from big farmer which is a [64:12] huge bias. So they're not independent. [64:13] So those are those are the two facts [64:14] that should at least if I threw that [64:16] back you say hold on a minute then [64:17] should I believe all this now what was [64:19] the purpose of that article of course it [64:21] was to undermine my credibility I'm [64:22] exposing essentially something you know [64:26] it for all intents and purposes pretty [64:27] horrific you know reluctantly on the BBC [64:30] with 25 million views or whatever else [64:31] right um but people that inspire me have [64:35] been through far worse right and and I'm [64:37] an activist that want to expose [64:39] injustices right the likes of Mandela [64:42] Gandhi Martin Luther [64:44] One of the lessons from them and even in [64:45] public health advocacy as soon as your [64:47] work threatens an industry or an [64:49] ideological cabal you will be attacked [64:51] sometimes unrelentingly and viciously [64:53] and that was really a hatchet job. [64:54] Can I what about the the second part of [64:56] the quote that where he says that the [64:58] vast majority of cardiologists do not [65:00] agree with your views? [65:01] Um [65:01] is that true in your opinion? He's [65:03] giving his opinion, but actually um from [65:05] every okay every cardiologist I spoke to [65:09] has basically said you're going to do [65:11] doing great work but they won't speak [65:13] out and this is part of the problem [65:14] right is that people are turning a blind [65:16] eye. I had uh one cardiologist um who [65:21] met me in the street right these are I [65:23] have this happens all the time and he [65:25] said I read your paper he said I can [65:26] tell you now although they won't admit [65:28] it publicly all the cardiologists in our [65:31] department and they know you and they [65:33] and they they trust where you come from [65:35] and your integrity none of them are [65:37] having any more COVID vaccines because [65:39] of you they're on to it but Steve this [65:41] is a problem only a small minority of [65:42] people are willing to speak out I have a [65:44] platform where I'm able to articulate it [65:46] and and do so. But that is my duty and [65:48] responsibility. This is just a [65:50] reflection of uh what is ultimately a [65:54] big farmer tyranny. You know, I know [65:56] you've interviewed Jordan Peterson, who [65:57] I um admire greatly. Uh and and Jordan [66:01] Peterson says when you have something to [66:02] say, silence is a lie. [snorts] And you [66:05] know, tyranny tyranny emerges when [66:07] people are afraid to say what they [66:09] think. And when everybody essentially [66:12] lies all the time by being silent, [66:14] that's when the tyranny is complete. [66:16] This is exactly where we are. But I do [66:19] want to mention something if you don't [66:20] if you don't mind like I have to go [66:22] through this right myself and it's not [66:24] easy right you get all this stuff and [66:26] people checking credibility and I [66:27] remember when that that that Guardian [66:29] hit piece which was like the you know [66:30] the top story that day I actually felt [66:33] in many way feelings but I felt ah over [66:36] the target here right because Gandhi [66:38] said first they ignore you then they [66:40] laugh at you then they fight you then [66:43] you win. So the point is these things [66:46] work Steve but you know the truth is the [66:49] truth. So [66:50] what is the reality then of your of your [66:52] life going through that? Because you [66:54] know if you get attacked from all [66:55] angles, you've not got immediate family [66:57] there, you're you're reading stuff about [66:59] yourself online all the time, your [67:01] colleagues, etc. are turning on you. [67:02] What what's life like in if I'm a fly on [67:04] the wall in those hard moments? Um [67:08] very deep pain [67:11] on [67:13] to to to have the knowledge and deep an [67:17] understanding that in my view we are [67:21] dealing with one of the greatest likely [67:26] corporate crimes, medical mistakes, [67:27] damage to people's health. People are [67:29] suffering, people are dying, people have [67:31] got all sorts of problems because of [67:32] this vaccine. to have that deep [67:34] knowledge and understanding and to not [67:38] be able to see any great progress or [67:41] enough progress for this to be resolved [67:44] or to be improved. That suffering around [67:46] me gives me very deep pain more than [67:48] anything else. [67:52] Why? [67:54] I think inherently I'm just very [67:56] sensitive to that around me. That's just [67:57] the way I am. I think it's part of my [67:59] innate nature. I've always been like [68:01] that. You know, I had a I went for um [68:05] you know, on the positive side, there [68:07] are a lot of good friends around. You [68:08] know, I haven't got immediate emotional [68:09] support, if that makes sense, right [68:11] where I am, but there are hundreds of [68:13] thousands of people that support me [68:14] certainly who follow me on Twitter and I [68:16] people come and meet me in the street. I [68:18] randomly bumped into this doctor in the [68:20] street who I didn't know, an older [68:21] doctor quite well known. I won't name [68:23] him. Um and he said he he got really [68:26] emotional in the street and he met me [68:28] and he said, "Dr. Satra, thank you for [68:30] everything you are doing with all of [68:31] this. And I said, well, you know, I I [68:33] tried to be as humble with it. I said, [68:35] I'm just a medium for a message. I'm [68:36] doing the right thing. He said, no, what [68:37] you're doing is extremely brave and I'm [68:39] with you 100% and I know the vaccine [68:40] killed one of my colleagues, etc., etc. [68:42] And he was very honest. He said, I'm [68:43] just too frightened to speak up, [68:45] [snorts] [68:45] but that gives me fuel, right? And this [68:48] this happens constantly. So, I think [68:49] there is definitely something that I get [68:51] from that. So let me summarize your [68:53] position then because I want to move on [68:54] to I want to talk about statins and [68:55] heart disease and particularly high [68:56] cholesterol because I got told by my [68:58] doctor I have high high cholesterol. To [69:00] summarize your position is you believe [69:02] that vaccines themselves are [69:06] net good for the world. [69:09] Some of the greatest achievements in [69:10] medicine are traditional vaccines. No [69:12] doubt. You believe that the COVID [69:14] vaccine at the start when administered [69:16] to certain age groups that were most [69:18] vulnerable [69:20] there's an argument to say that it was [69:21] it was a net positive. [69:22] Yeah, I think there's an argument [69:24] and that you believe after sort of 2022 [69:28] or 2021 when the variant changed to [69:32] another I think it was called omnicron [69:33] wasn't it? Um that at that point it [69:36] certainly became a net negative. Is that [69:38] your view? I would think probably [69:39] earlier Steph and the only reason I say [69:40] this is anecdotal evidence of course is [69:42] my dad had a cardiac arrest in the [69:44] summer of 2021 he was 73 right and he [69:47] could be considered in a high-risisk [69:48] group so I think that if one was to make [69:52] that case I would say well well it [69:54] depends what we're talking about as well [69:56] in terms of COVID yes right the net [69:58] benefit in terms of COVID and COVID [70:00] deaths but the problem is what's the [70:02] point in preventing someone getting [70:04] COVID if six months later they're going [70:05] to die of a cardiac arrest [70:07] you see what I mean So we've got to look [70:08] at it in that nuanced way. But yeah, I [70:10] think there is a case to be made that if [70:12] it was just given to certain high-risisk [70:13] groups overall there may have been a net [70:16] benefit at the beginning. But where we [70:18] are now and where it's continued and the [70:20] mandates and all the stuff that extended [70:22] it to many more people taking it and [70:24] that almost certainly was being fueled [70:25] by FISA and that's been shown that they [70:28] were you know giving money to grass [70:31] credible grassroots organizations in the [70:33] US to promote the mandates. Right? this [70:35] is after the data they received showing [70:37] that it wasn't preventing infection and [70:38] causing serious harm. Right? So this is [70:40] this is a problem with the system. I'm [70:41] not blaming individuals here. This is [70:43] something we'll talk about with statins [70:44] as well is that um the uh the system the [70:49] corporate capitalist system or the way [70:50] capitalism is is actually being [70:52] implemented is in its in many ways and [70:57] this has been diagnosed by a forensic [71:00] psychologist. uh the the corporation as [71:03] an institution is psychopathic when it [71:05] comes to making money. That means they [71:06] have callous unconcern for the safety of [71:08] others, repeated lying, conning others [71:11] for profit. And this is unfortunately [71:13] this is the root of the problem. [71:15] And you also believe that there is a [71:18] chance as well and it's likely that the [71:21] impacts of the lifestyle changes, the [71:23] lockdowns etc. The stress, the mental [71:25] health issues, the removing people from [71:27] being able to see their loved ones, the [71:28] sedentary lifestyles also contributed to [71:31] the rise in heart related conditions and [71:34] heart disease. [71:34] 100%. It's played a role. A smaller [71:36] role, but it's played a role 100%. [71:38] So, I want to talk about heart disease [71:40] because I don't even know what heart [71:41] disease is. And also, I don't know what [71:43] a heart attack is. I think we kind of [71:44] all just assume we know, but what what [71:46] is a what is a heart what's heart [71:47] disease and what's a heart attack? So [71:49] heart disease uh the [71:52] conventional [71:54] description or explanation of heart [71:56] disease is disease that affects the [72:00] blood vessels of the heart essentially. [72:02] Okay, that's that's coronary artery [72:04] disease we call it. [72:05] That's what most people when they talk [72:06] about heart disease that's what they [72:07] that's what they mean. Um so that [72:09] disease that affects the blood vessels [72:13] leads to buildup of something called [72:16] plaque uh which is furring if you like. [72:19] Okay. Like a [72:20] plaque. [72:21] Plaque. Yeah. So plaque is furring of [72:22] the arteries like a blockage. [72:23] Okay. [72:24] Right. A blockage. [72:25] That blockage is made up of uh cells of [72:29] the immune system. It's made up of [72:30] cholesterol. Right. And over time that [72:34] those blockages can either suddenly uh [72:38] like a pimple building up and the pimple [72:40] getting bigger and bigger and bigger or [72:41] even a small pimple suddenly bursting [72:44] and the contents of that plaque, right? [72:47] The response to um [72:50] the blood having contact with the [72:53] contents of that plaque that has built [72:55] up over time suddenly causes a clot to [72:57] form. And if the clot blocks the whole [73:00] artery then during the blood supply is [73:03] completely cut off to the heart muscle. [73:05] So the the purpose of those blood [73:07] vessels is to supply the heart muscle [73:10] with blood so it can contract. So if you [73:13] have a blockage that is there for [73:16] several minutes completely cutting off [73:18] the blood supply depending on where it [73:19] is, it will cause that area of the heart [73:22] muscle to lose its oxygen supply and [73:25] nutrients and die and scar and that [73:28] leads to cell death. But of course the [73:30] heart muscle is quite big. So it could [73:31] be a very small heart attack, could be a [73:32] big heart attack. And then so so heart [73:35] attack specifically is death of any [73:37] region of the heart muscle because of a [73:39] blockage. [73:41] Okay, I'm going to try [73:42] the death of the cells. [73:44] I'm going to try and play this back to [73:45] you. Yeah, [73:45] correct me if I'm wrong. So, you get [73:46] this buildup in your artery. [73:48] Yeah. [73:49] But due to a bunch of factors I was [73:51] talking about, [73:52] the buildup explodes. [73:54] Yes. [73:55] Flows through the blood blocking the [73:56] artery at some point. [73:58] Yes. [73:58] And then that blockage in the artery [74:00] causes a cell in the heart, some areas [74:04] in the heart to die because they're not [74:06] getting oxygen. [74:06] Exactly. So, so you you're cut you've [74:08] basically cut off the blood supply. So [74:09] it's cutting off the blood supply to [74:11] whatever area because there are many [74:12] branches. It depends where the blockage [74:13] is. You cut off the blood supply. If [74:14] it's cut off for long enough, [74:16] those cells, every cell in our body [74:17] needs oxygen to survive, right? Then [74:19] that those that part of the heart muscle [74:21] will die and become scarred. [74:23] So it dies and becomes scarred in about [74:25] seven 7 8 minutes. You said [74:26] it can well it can take you know 15 to [74:29] 20 minutes. It depends on different [74:31] factors but within minutes. Yes. [74:33] And how does that feel from minute one [74:35] till minute sort of 10? [74:36] So the classic symptoms of a heart [74:38] attack, right? that is a central what we [74:41] call crushing heaviness or pain that can [74:45] travel radiate we say in medical terms [74:47] to the neck the jaw it can go into the [74:51] shoulders um it can go into the back [74:53] that's the classic symptoms or down the [74:55] left arm [74:55] and you're conscious at this point [74:57] yes you're conscious so a cardiac arrest [74:59] just means the heart stopping ultimately [75:02] actually we all have a cardiac arrest [75:03] when we die the last thing to go is our [75:04] heart right but um one of the most [75:06] common causes of a cardiac arrest [75:08] certainly prematurely, not because of [75:10] old age, for example, is um and this is [75:14] random. So you can have a heart attack [75:16] and you can be conscious and have pain [75:17] and you get to hospital and you get [75:18] diagnosed and you might have a you know [75:20] a stent put in or you might be put on [75:21] blood thinners or whatever. Um in a [75:24] certain proportion of people um and it [75:27] doesn't depend on the size of the heart [75:28] attack. So um you can have a big area of [75:32] the heart muscle that's damaged or a [75:33] small area of the heart muscle that [75:34] damaged and it's random that it can [75:36] cause an interruption in the normal [75:38] electrical activity of the heart. The [75:40] heart has electrical circuit that allows [75:42] it to pump. Right? There's an electrical [75:43] circuit that allows it to pump in a [75:45] certain you know in a in a in a regular [75:47] rhythm. that circuit can get interrupted [75:51] and then the heart muscle that's pumping [75:52] like this right because it's pumping all [75:54] the blood around your body to your brain [75:56] everything else suddenly starts [75:57] quivering right uh and that's known as [76:00] ventricular fibrillation [76:02] that's when you see on all the you know [76:04] on movies or on TV shows and stuff like [76:06] that when they start shocking people and [76:07] that shows on the heart tracing as a [76:10] kind of squiggle like this [76:11] okay [76:12] right and that is what we call a [76:13] shockable rhythm if you deliver a shock [76:15] you know often 200 jewels right is is [76:18] delivered with a defibrillator that will [76:20] often restart the heart into a normal [76:22] rhythm and then the patient can be [76:24] managed and treated for example. So [76:25] that's but that quivering of the heart [76:27] causes basically the heart to stop [76:29] pumping blood around the body. The [76:31] heart's still moving but it's not enough [76:32] to pump blood around the body and if [76:34] that's going for a very long time Steve [76:36] not lot long you know for example in my [76:38] dad's case it may have been similar 20 [76:39] or 30 minutes then eventually then you [76:42] know that will even stop and patient [76:44] dies. So, I've read some stats from a [76:47] different source that said in the UK, [76:48] one in eight men and one in 14 women die [76:51] from conory heart disease over the [76:53] course of their lifetime and that nearly [76:55] 50% of all US adults have some type of [76:57] heart disease. Um, and before the [76:59] pandemic hit in 2019, 12 children died [77:02] every single week in the UK from cardiac [77:05] arrest. So, I mean, this is if [77:08] anything's going to kill me, it's [77:09] probably this. [77:10] Yes, most likely. [77:12] So, how do I stop it? [laughter] Right. [77:15] Um, how do you stop it? How do you even [77:17] reverse it? [77:18] How about some statins? [77:19] Yeah. So, okay, [77:20] let me just say this. My doctor, I got [77:22] my lab results back like 3 days ago, [77:24] and he told me a couple of things. One [77:26] thing he told me is, "You got load [77:27] vitamin D." I said, "Fine, yeah, get it. [77:28] I'm in a room all day." Uh, the second [77:31] thing he said is, "Your cholesterol is [77:32] high." He said, "Your bad cholesterol is [77:34] high." And I I don't really know what to [77:36] make of that, but he said, "Your your [77:38] bad cholesterol is high, and I need to [77:39] get that down." [77:41] Um, my father takes statins, which I [77:46] know a lot of people take statins. I [77:47] think it's like 200 million people are [77:48] taking statins globally. Um, so because [77:52] I have you here, what do you think of of [77:55] what the advice I was given, which is [77:57] just to get my bad cholesterol down and [77:59] how do I prevent myself ending up on [78:01] either statins or having a heart attack? [78:04] Okay. So on the statins issue and the [78:07] cholesterol issue traditionally Steve [78:10] for uh decades and even now the one of [78:15] the the primary focus within medicine [78:18] within cardiology to combat heart [78:21] disease was to get your so-called bad [78:22] cholesterol LDL as low as possible. [78:24] So LDL means bad cholesterol. [78:26] It's called low density lipoprotein [78:28] which is the bad stuff. [78:29] It's so well it's thought of [78:32] conventionally as a bad cholesterol. [78:33] Right. And the reason for that is is [78:37] that earlier studies that were done on [78:41] uh the correlation that was found [78:43] between high cholesterol and heart [78:44] disease [snorts] [78:45] um revealed that very high levels of [78:48] total cholesterol. There was a very high [78:52] um prevalence of heart disease. But [78:55] those levels of of cholesterol go and we [78:57] go we're talking about going back from [78:59] you know studies that started in 1948 [79:02] that went over three decades where they [79:04] they found cholesterol being associated [79:06] with heart disease was only really there [79:08] at very very high levels. That's the [79:10] first thing. [79:12] The second part of it and why they [79:14] thought that getting it as low as [79:15] possible was the solution is that people [79:17] who had very low levels of cholesterol [79:20] tended not get heart disease. Right? [79:22] Total cholesterol less than four, LDL [79:26] less than two mill moles. Let's just say [79:27] that for argument sake, less than 2 mill [79:28] moles per liter. And by the way, just so [79:31] just so people understand this, you [79:33] would have got a red mark probably [79:34] saying that your LDL cholesterol is high [79:35] if it's more now the the guideline [79:37] suggests if it's more than three mill [79:39] moles per liter in your blood. The [79:41] measurement that is considered high, but [79:43] we we we'll we'll tear that we'll tease [79:44] that apart in a second. Now the thinking [79:47] was that okay if people with low [79:50] cholesterol are not getting heart [79:51] disease and people with very high levels [79:53] of cholesterol are getting heart disease [79:55] and that was total cholesterol above 10 [79:57] for example right and LDL's above seven [80:00] or eight massively high right then or or [80:03] or more likely to get heart disease at [80:05] significant [80:07] numbers uh the thinking was that the [80:09] lower the better so all these drug [80:11] trials started but there's one thing [80:14] missing first and foremost most is that [80:16] most people's cholesterol Steve LDL is [80:19] genetic. [80:20] 80% of your cholesterol because [80:22] cholesterol is a very So why have we got [80:23] it? It's a very vital molecule in the [80:24] body. It's without cholesterol we would [80:26] die. It's required for maintaining the [80:29] integrity of cells and cell membranes. [80:31] It's required for hormone production, [80:33] right? It has a role in the immune [80:34] system. So it's really important vital [80:37] molecule in the body. You can change the [80:39] profile of the cholesterol. There are [80:40] different components. There's something [80:42] called triglycerides which is a blood [80:43] fat and HDL so called good cholesterol [80:45] and LDL through dietary changes but [80:48] predominantly it's genetic initially [80:49] right so this is a thing so that does [80:52] that so so one could then question maybe [80:56] those people in those original studies [80:58] had genetically high cholesterol but [81:01] that doesn't mean the cholesterol was [81:03] the problem there may been something [81:04] else that hadn't been measured that we [81:06] hadn't discovered yet [81:07] that was genetic [81:08] that was causing the heart disease but [81:09] it happened to also beausing causing a [81:11] raised LDL. At the same time, people [81:14] with low cholesterol, they may have had [81:16] something else, right? They may have had [81:17] other factors that we now know actually [81:20] are linked to heart disease and it's [81:21] something to do with the cholesterol. So [81:22] that's the first thing. The next [81:24] question is um does lowering [81:26] cholesterol? So the question to you is [81:27] does lowering your LDL make any [81:28] difference? And for many many years [81:30] there was a mantra that was pushed by [81:33] the medical establishment that there was [81:36] a linear relationship. The lower your [81:37] LDL, the less likely you are to get [81:39] heart disease. In fact, there was a a a [81:42] commentary written by one of America's [81:44] most well-known eminent cardiologists. [81:46] He was the editor of the American [81:48] Journal of Cardiology. His name was [81:49] William Roberts. And he wrote an article [81:51] in 2011 to try and push the cholesterol [81:54] message further. So more people, most [81:55] more people take cholesterol drug [81:57] statins. And it was called it's the [81:59] cholesterol stupid. And there's a line [82:01] in that which I mentioned in my book [82:04] where he said you can be an obese [82:08] diabetic sedentary smoker [82:11] but as long as your cholesterol is low [82:13] enough in other words total LDL [82:14] cholesterol you will not develop heart [82:16] disease. Think about that for a second. [82:17] Now I'm just putting that to you Steve. [82:19] Now you hearing that what is does that [82:20] sound plausible to you? [82:22] No. [82:23] Right. It doesn't does it. It sounds a [82:24] bit strange doesn't it? Right. And I [82:26] thought this is odd. [82:29] I started looking into this in a lot of [82:30] detail probably 2010 partly because [82:34] by the end of the by by the late 90s the [82:37] people who had discovered the [82:39] relationship with very high LDL [82:41] cholesterol which is actually by the way [82:43] genetically linked to a condition called [82:45] familial hyper lipidmia affects one in [82:48] 250 people right people's cholesterol is [82:50] skyhigh [82:52] um those people who got the Nobel prize [82:54] for this discovery said they predicted [82:57] the almost the eradication of heart [82:59] disease in the world by the early 2000s [83:02] because we had discovered these drugs [83:03] called statin drugs that lower [83:04] cholesterol and are shown through [83:06] clinical trials to prevent heart attacks [83:09] and strokes and death which we'll come [83:11] on to. Right? So you've got the [83:13] combination of that. But before statins [83:15] came onto the market and have been [83:17] prescribed now to 200 million people, [83:19] one of the things that isn't talked [83:20] about enough is that there were lots of [83:23] trials done. So you've got this [83:24] hypothesis now. We think we're right [83:25] here. We've discovered that very high [83:27] cholesterol in the population has got a [83:29] strong link to heart disease. And we've [83:31] discovered that very low cholesterol [83:32] doesn't give heart disease. But by the [83:34] way, what's interesting is for 95% of [83:36] the population in the middle, there was [83:38] no relationship with who was going to [83:39] develop heart disease and who wasn't [83:41] depending on the based upon their [83:43] cholesterol. Okay. But they thought, [83:46] let's develop these drugs to lower [83:47] cholesterol and we prevent heart attack. [83:48] So all the drug trials, Steve, before [83:50] statins came on the market did not show [83:52] any benefit. So, you've got the trial [83:54] where you've got someone with high [83:55] cholesterol and and another person with [83:56] high cholesterol. One person gets a [83:58] drug, the other person doesn't. You [83:59] follow them up. The person on the drug [84:01] massively lowers the cholesterol. No [84:02] prevention heart attacks over several [84:03] years. Like, hold on. What's going on [84:05] here? Maybe we did the trial wrong. [84:06] Let's try again. Let's try again. Let's [84:08] try again. Statins are produced. Okay. A [84:11] different type of cholesterol-lowering [84:12] drug. And suddenly you start seeing [84:15] benefits. Hearts. Oh, great. We've [84:16] solved it. Then we can make this case [84:18] that the lower cholesterol are better. [84:21] Two problems with that. The first one is [84:23] that statins actually have other [84:26] properties [84:28] other than lowering LDL cholesterol. [84:30] They are also anti-inflammatory and they [84:32] have anti- clotting properties. [84:35] What's accepted now is we know heart [84:37] disease is a problem is a a is a [84:39] clotting problem linked to chronic [84:40] inflammation. So it means the benefit of [84:43] statins which I will give you in a [84:45] second, right? is probably more likely [84:48] because of those properties because [84:49] other studies when we did other drugs on [84:51] cholesterol there was no benefit. Does [84:52] that make sense? Am I making sense now? [84:53] Yeah. So it's targeting the inflammation [84:55] and the clotting. [84:55] Exactly. So the question then is what is [84:58] the benefit of statins? So the first [85:00] thing to say and this is where the [85:01] controversy has happened um is that what [85:05] I'm about to tell you is again based [85:07] upon drug industry sponsored trials [85:10] where the raw data on those trials with [85:13] the benefits I'm going to tell you has [85:14] never been independently verified. So [85:17] what I say to patients and I'll say this [85:18] to you is what I'm about to tell you is [85:20] likely in my opinion an exaggerated [85:23] benefit but it's still a benefit. I'm [85:25] going to tell you if we trust the drug [85:27] companies completely, this is a benefit [85:29] you're going to get. Steve, if you've [85:30] not had a heart attack, forget about [85:32] high cholesterol for a second, right? [85:33] This applies to everybody. If you've not [85:35] had a heart attack [85:37] or you have not been diagnosed with [85:39] severe blockages, right? You've not got [85:41] that, right? And you would you would [85:42] know if you did because you'd get [85:43] symptoms of chest pain doing exercise. [85:46] Then the benefit of a statin for you [85:48] over a fiveyear period at best is one in [85:52] 100 in preventing you having a nonfatal [85:55] heart attack, a nondisabling stroke but [85:59] will not prolong your life by one day. [86:01] So that's the first thing. Now when you [86:03] do studies where you give patient that [86:05] information in that transparent way more [86:09] than twothirds of them most of them will [86:10] and I my experience as well say doc [86:13] those odds don't sound great I want to [86:14] prevent heart disease but I don't fancy [86:15] taking and this is before by the way [86:16] we've talked about side effects where [86:18] the controversy has happened which I've [86:20] been heavily involved in is in my [86:23] experience with with patients and also [86:25] other data that's out there a large [86:28] proportion of patients will suffer [86:31] quality let me be clear Here it's not [86:32] about serious, right? Quality of life [86:35] limiting side effects, right? That means [86:37] most commonly fatigue, muscle pain, can [86:40] be erectile dysfunction, sleep [86:41] disturbance, but stuff that makes you [86:42] don't feel you don't feel good like this [86:43] is not a good way to live. [86:45] [snorts and gasps] The good news is it's [86:46] reversible usually within a couple weeks [86:48] of stopping the statin or reducing the [86:49] dose. Okay. So that controversy uh led [86:53] to me publishing an article in the [86:54] British Medical Journal in 2013 where me [86:56] and another and a Harvard doctor in a [86:58] separate article said we we believe that [87:00] the side effect rate is probably in the [87:02] order of one in five people 20 20% which [87:03] is quite high of those sorts of side [87:05] effects right [snorts] and that caused a [87:08] bit of backlash because the group of [87:11] researchers in Oxford who take money [87:12] from big farmer who write the guidelines [87:15] around the world said this is going to [87:17] scare people stop them taking statins [87:18] and people will die but that for the [87:21] low-risisk people, no one's going to die [87:22] because there's no benefit in mortality. [87:25] Now, for high-risisk people, those are [87:27] people who have had a heart attack. [87:29] Um, the benefit of a statin is is [87:32] better, Steve. Okay. So, let's say, for [87:34] example, some patient comes in, they've [87:35] had a heart attack, and I'm telling them [87:36] the benefit of the statin if they take [87:38] it religiously every day for five uh [87:41] five years because that's how long the [87:42] trials last where you can give them that [87:44] information. The benefit of preventing a [87:46] further heart attack is 1 in 39, about [87:49] 2.5%. 1 in 39 and the benefit in [87:52] prolonging their life is 1 in 83. [87:56] Right? There's another way of looking at [87:59] the stats though based upon again [88:01] industry sponsored trials all of the [88:03] trials that have been done on statins [88:05] and people might ask a question. They [88:06] don't often ask this but they may ask [88:07] the question how much longer am I going [88:09] to live? [88:11] Right? Like okay let's just throw this [88:13] question to you. Say you've had a heart [88:15] attack. You survived a heart attack. [88:17] doctor says take this drug and and over [88:20] a fiveyear period, how much extra life [88:24] ex life life extension would you hope or [88:26] hope it would add over that five years? [88:27] You can, you know, you can do it over [88:29] whatever 20 years, but just say 5 years [88:30] to start with. How much longer would you [88:32] hope to live from taking that statin? [88:34] Okay, so over five years then I'd say um [88:37] maybe a year. [88:38] Okay. [88:38] 25% more. [88:39] Okay, fine. That sounds that sounds [88:40] pretty good. [88:41] 20% more. [88:42] Yeah. Okay. [88:43] Um the actual figure not disputed from [88:46] industry sponsored trials right [88:49] 4.2 two days, just over four days. [88:52] Is that because they haven't done it [88:53] over a long enough period of time? [88:55] No. I mean, and then if you then [88:56] extrapolate it out, if you presume the [88:58] benefits are going to keep going on, you [88:59] could then argue, well, over 10 years [89:01] it'll be 8 days and over 20 years it'll [89:04] be 16 days or whatever, right? So, so [89:06] that's the information. So, this the [89:08] reason I'm I'm I'm telling you this, [89:10] Steve, is that [89:12] this information is important. I'm not [89:14] just a doctor. I'm a potential patient. [89:16] I ask myself, what would I want to know, [89:18] right? I am here to try and improve my [89:20] quality of life and my health. What is [89:22] important to me? What is important to [89:23] patients? This information is important [89:26] especially Steve because it's not that [89:28] I'm saying don't take statins. A lot of [89:29] people will say okay I'll take the drug [89:30] right and if they don't get side effects [89:32] why not you know it might be a bit of a [89:33] lottery but why not take the drug and [89:35] the people say that to me and that's [89:36] fine and if they get side effects but [89:38] the thing that's missing Steve is and [89:39] this is where we come on to the question [89:40] you asked me about how to prevent heart [89:42] disease. Is there an alternative that [89:45] doesn't give me side effects, improves [89:47] my quality of life, and likely is going [89:49] to help prevent stop me getting heart [89:51] disease? So, what is that? [89:53] Lifestyle changes. [89:55] Absolutely. So, 80% of heart disease is [89:58] linked to environment and lifestyle. [90:01] Okay. So what is the the core most [90:05] important biological phenomenon in the [90:08] body that leads to heart disease which [90:10] is not disputed but doesn't get it [90:12] doesn't get much of a um there's no [90:14] market for the message because there is [90:16] no you can't commodify this this is an [90:18] interesting thing right so but it's it's [90:20] really important information it's called [90:21] insulin resistance insulin is a very [90:24] important hormone in the body released [90:25] by the pancreas helps maintain blood [90:28] glucose within certain ranges so our [90:29] cells can function optimally all Right? [90:32] Over time, if your insulin is [90:35] chronically raised too high or if your [90:38] cells become resistant to them for [90:40] whatever reason, that is the most [90:42] important driver of the development of [90:44] these so-called plaques, these furring, [90:45] these blockages in the arteries. [90:47] [snorts] [90:48] So, what causes insulin resistance and [90:50] how can you combat it or how, you know, [90:52] how can you prevent and and potentially, [90:53] you know, stabilize and even reverse? [90:55] We'll go on to reversal as well because [90:56] that's a fascinating area. [gasps] [91:00] most important components [91:02] diet. Okay, I would say in big figure [91:07] terms now probably 50% of heart disease [91:12] around the world can be linked to poor [91:14] diet. [91:16] Okay, so let's start with diet then. [91:17] I've actually got a bag of sugar that [91:20] I've brought with me because um when I [91:22] think about insulin glucose bad diet, [91:24] the first thing my my brain thinks about [91:25] is sugar. So, I've got this bag of sugar [91:28] here that I brought with me. Um, and [91:30] I've got two Look at us. We've we've [91:33] written sugar on it and covered up the [91:34] brand because they didn't pay us. But, [91:36] if there is a sugar brand that would [91:37] like to do a brand deal, please get in [91:38] touch. [laughter] [91:39] We're big fans if we need to be. Um, [91:42] what I actually would like you to to [91:43] show me is how much sugar do I need to [91:48] function and to be healthy. [91:50] Okay. The amount of sugar that you need [91:51] to function and be healthy is zero. [91:54] There is no nutritional requirement [91:57] whatsoever of of of this what we call [92:00] added sugar or table sugar. None at all. [92:03] So I don't need any. [92:04] You don't need any. And the reason for [92:05] that is very briefly our bodies need [92:08] glucose to survive. But you don't need [92:10] any dietary source of glucose to [92:12] survive. Right? Because your people go [92:14] on what we call ketogenic diets and they [92:16] literally eliminate all starch as well [92:18] which also contains glucose um from [92:21] their diet. Your body will make it [92:23] itself from fat and protein. So in terms [92:26] of diet, there is no value from sugar [92:28] whatsoever. It can give you energy of [92:31] course, yes, but you can get energy from [92:32] other things, but there's no nutritional [92:33] value whatsoever. Zero. So from a from a [92:36] health perspective, there is zero [92:38] requirement for dietary sugar. [92:41] So when we say that Americans are [92:42] consuming a lot of sugar every day, are [92:45] we talking about added sugar? Yeah, [92:46] we're talking about so the way that so [92:49] the World Health Organization now [92:52] um after I was involved in this [92:54] campaign, you know, and there was a lot [92:55] of attention on it, they revise their [92:57] guidelines. So they recommend a maximum [92:59] limit for the average adult of actually [93:02] six teaspoons of either um so maximum [93:05] limit, okay, which you don't need it, [93:06] but maximum limit because after that [93:08] that's when the health consequences [93:09] start to accumulate. One, [93:12] two, [93:15] 3, [93:18] 4, [93:21] 5, [93:23] six. [93:24] Okay. So, that's the maximum daily [93:26] limit. [93:26] Maximum daily limit. Okay. But just to [93:28] give you an example, that's not let's so [93:32] one sugary drink, we don't name any [93:34] brands, right? You would have to would [93:36] often a 330 mil let's say the most [93:39] famous sugary drink uh in the world [93:40] I have no idea who you're talking about [93:41] would have nine teaspoons on top nine [93:44] spoons in one of those right and that's [93:46] just in the 330 mil imagine going to the [93:47] cinema and having half a liter whatever [93:49] else right [93:50] Jesus so one can of beep um has nine [93:54] teaspoons of sugar in it which is [93:56] which is so four yeah absolutely so four [93:59] grams is one teaspoon [94:00] okay which is well above the daily [94:02] recommended daily maximum one chocolate [94:06] bar. [94:06] Yeah. [94:06] Like a standard size chocolate bar. What [94:08] we grew up with [94:09] about the same. [94:10] Leave leave chocolate out of it. [94:11] Right. [laughter] Well, listen, you [94:13] know, dark chocolate. I love chocolate, [94:14] right? Have you know um for children, [94:17] the US Department of Agriculture, for [94:19] the average 4 to 8year-old child, think [94:21] about kids as well. They're the most [94:22] vulnerable to a lot of this pro these [94:24] problems of sugar. They recommend a [94:26] maximum limit of three teaspoons. [94:29] Yeah. Now the average person in this [94:32] country in America is consuming at least [94:35] 20 teaspoons. Now when we talk about [94:37] sugar we're talking about world health [94:39] they they the word they use is free [94:41] sugars. So it means this sort of sugar [94:42] added right to foods. Um but it also [94:45] includes fruit juice, [94:47] honey and syrups. [94:50] same effect on your body. The that I [94:53] fruit, whole fruit is fine, but if you [94:54] think about it, um a glass of orange [94:58] juice, for example, would usually have [95:00] the uh the juice of six oranges. [95:04] Okay? [95:05] You couldn't eat six oranges that [95:06] easily. You'd have one orange, for [95:07] example. And there's fiber, and the [95:10] fiber does has a counteracting effect on [95:12] terms of the way that the um the glucose [95:15] and fructose is affected absorbed in [95:17] your body. A lot of it's to do with the [95:18] rapid increase in the bloodstream of [95:20] blood glucose and and that causes huge [95:23] spikes in insulin. And the problem with [95:26] that over time, of course, is you get [95:28] chronically raised insulin and heart [95:29] disease. But also, interestingly, the [95:30] more rapidly you have a food that causes [95:32] a glucose spike, the more quickly you're [95:35] going to get a crash because insulin [95:36] goes up quite quickly and it causes to [95:38] come down and it drives hunger. [95:40] Yeah. [95:40] So, that's another problem. So, the food [95:43] industry, I think, knew for a long time. [95:44] That's why you know in America and it [95:46] may be similar here 70% of foods [95:48] purchased in supermarket in America will [95:50] have added sugar because they knew that [95:52] it increases the palatability and the [95:54] consumption. Of course they're there to [95:55] sell food not look after your health. [95:57] So you said 20 teaspoons is the average [96:00] for an American. [96:01] At least 20 is probably much higher. [96:02] I'm going to have I'm going to have to [96:03] ask you to show us that. [96:05] Yeah. [96:05] So I can see what that looks like in a [96:07] glass. [96:07] It's disgusting. That's disgusting when [96:10] you see it like that. And you don't you [96:12] don't realize that you're having that [96:13] much sugar in a day. But I mean, [96:16] technically that's what two cans of [96:19] fizzy drink. [96:20] Yeah. Yeah. But the thing is a lot of [96:22] the sugar that's being consumed are in [96:24] foods that people wouldn't think have [96:25] sugar in them. They're not the usual [96:27] junk food, your cakes and biscuits and [96:29] whatever else, you know. Um they're in [96:32] things even marketed as being healthy. [96:34] Low-fat foods, etc., low-fat yogurts. [96:36] So, could you just summarize what we [96:38] have here then? These two glasses. [96:39] Yeah. So this is the maximum daily [96:42] recommended limit by the World Health [96:44] Organization of sugar consumption after [96:46] which you then start to see increases [96:48] risks of disease. Um and this is what at [96:53] least I think what most people are [96:55] consuming at the moment. [96:59] Are you hopeful that there's something [97:00] we can do about this [snorts] at a [97:02] society level? Well, I think one [97:05] important step was the fact that we in, [97:06] you know, this levy on sugary drinks [97:08] definitely would have some um impact [97:11] partly based upon what we learned from [97:13] big tobacco. You know, Steve, you know, [97:16] 50% of it's interesting, crazy when you [97:19] think about it now. In 1970, 50% of [97:22] adults in the UK were smokers, right? [97:24] We've got that down to about 17% now, [97:26] but massive reduction, right? And it [97:29] happened. Education was important, but [97:30] the real the real intervention that had [97:34] more [97:35] um impact than anything else was [97:38] actually taxation of cigarettes. And it [97:41] had twofold effect. Of course, you make [97:43] it a little bit more expensive. You [97:44] know, you know this with your business [97:46] background, right? It's going to reduce [97:48] the the consumption, but it was a way of [97:49] also increasing awareness that this is [97:51] harmful. So, I think that the sugar [97:54] stuff is ongoing and I think a lot of [97:56] people have awareness on it. I think now [97:58] which is linked to sugar the and I've [98:00] written about this we need to treat [98:02] ultrarocessed food which a lot of the [98:05] ultrarocessed food has added sugar as [98:07] the new tobacco [98:09] right this is more than 50% of the [98:11] calories in the UK and more than 60% of [98:13] the calories in the US is of people's [98:16] daily consumption is coming from [98:17] ultrarocessed foods essentially [98:19] described as if it comes out of a packet [98:23] industrially produced and you can read [98:25] more than five ingredients usually with [98:27] additives and preservatives, it's [98:29] ultrarocessed and best avoided. And all [98:31] of the research that's been done only [98:33] points in one direction. And I think [98:34] there are at least 32 different [98:36] conditions or diseases now that are [98:38] associated with the consumption of [98:39] ultrarocessed food. That is the major [98:41] issue. So because this is a [98:43] predominantly an environmental problem, [98:45] right? Our our our food our food [98:47] environment is saturated with this [98:48] stuff. Even hospitals, Steve, I mean I [98:50] the first campaign I got involved with [98:51] is trying to get this stuff out of [98:52] hospital. I was like, hold on. We're [98:54] treating patients with obesity related [98:55] conditions, yet we're serving them junk [98:57] food in hospitals. The staff, 50% of NHS [98:59] staff are overweight or obese. [99:00] What's the probability that if I'm, cuz [99:02] I want to talk about ultressed foods as [99:04] well as the shoes, what's the [99:05] probability that if I'm having that much [99:07] sugar a day, the big glass, that I'm [99:10] going to end up in your practice with [99:12] some kind of heart disease. [99:14] I I wouldn't be able to give you a [99:15] figure, but you're definitely [99:17] significantly increasing your risk. [99:18] Well, if that's the average American, [99:20] then what's the average American's [99:21] chance of ending up in I guess causation [99:24] needs to be established. [99:24] Yeah, of course. And it depends what [99:26] else they're having as well. But but [99:28] it's definitely putting them at [99:29] significant increased risk of type 2 [99:30] diabetes. I think the figure now in [99:32] America, if I'm not wrong, is that a [99:35] third to a half of adult Americans now [99:38] are um pre-diabetic. [99:40] um the the broad so to answer your [99:43] question in in a better way because [99:46] we're already there unfortunately [99:48] um the way to [99:52] understand insulin resistance on a [99:54] personal level in terms of measurements [99:56] body measurements is something called [99:57] metabolic health and there are five [99:58] components which are very easy to [100:00] measure of metabolic health okay um it's [100:03] your waist circumference [100:04] right it's your blood triglycerides [100:07] which is a form of the cholesterol being [100:09] above 1.7 mill moles. Okay. Um, it's [100:12] your HDL cholesterol, the good [100:13] cholesterol being less than 1 mill. [100:16] It's being pre-diabetic. Okay. Having a [100:20] HBA1C of more than 5.7%. [100:23] Um, or being prehypertensive, so your [100:25] blood pressure is above 120 over 80 [100:27] average. If you have um three of those [100:32] that are abnormal, you have something [100:33] called metabolic syndrome. puts you at [100:35] the highest risk of heart disease and at [100:36] least 50% if not more patients admitted [100:39] with heart attacks will have metabolic [100:40] syndrome. But all those five parameters [100:44] being in the normal range in America [100:47] only one in eight adults have all of [100:50] those in the normal range and only one [100:52] in four people aged between 20 and 40. [100:55] Think about that for a second. [100:57] So seven out of eight yes adults will [100:59] have abnormal metabolic health. If we [101:03] within a year, if we just shifted a [101:07] little bit people's eating habits and [101:08] let's say we eliminated ultrarocessed [101:10] food, we got people to eat more nuts and [101:12] seeds, oily fish, you know, whole fruit [101:15] and vegetables, it's been estimated that [101:18] you would half the death rates from [101:20] heart disease within globally within one [101:23] year from 20 million to 10 million. [101:24] You'd be out of business [101:27] as a heart doctor. [101:29] Um, [101:31] there's still be a lot of people to [101:32] treat. We got to help the other 10 [101:33] million as well, right? But but I think [101:35] the other thing as well is um what it [101:37] does Steve though is it shifts the age. [101:40] So instead of someone having saying a [101:42] dying prematurely having a heart attack [101:44] at the age of say 65, you know, they'll [101:46] live to 85. So all we'll be doing as [101:49] doctors is we'll be managing older [101:50] people. But that's fine. You know, we've [101:52] improved longevity, improved quality of [101:53] life as well. [101:54] You refer to stress as a silent killer. [101:57] It's something we're not addressing, I [101:58] think, as a society. So, to give put it [102:00] in perspective, when you look at risk [102:02] factor for heart disease, risk factors [102:03] for heart disease, um the major ones are [102:06] smoking, type two diabetes, high blood [102:08] pressure. The risk of heart disease [102:11] linked to stress, chronic stress of more [102:14] than a moderate degree is actually the [102:16] same as being a smoker or having high [102:18] blood pressure or having type two [102:19] diabetes. And most people, I think, are [102:21] not managing it. And certainly of all [102:23] the patients I see, all the heart [102:25] patients I see, invariably all of them [102:29] have had over the preceding years before [102:31] their heart attack stress stress levels [102:34] that are quite high. What's the [102:36] mechanism? [102:37] So [102:39] from an evolutionary perspective, [102:43] if we were acute stress can be a [102:45] lifesaver, right? If we were running [102:47] away from a saber-tooth tiger, right? [102:50] Then what happens is the body produces [102:53] clotting factors and inflammatory [102:54] markers uh factors in the blood that if [102:58] we were attacked they help reduce the [103:00] risk of us bleeding to death. So imagine [103:02] now imagine that happening chronic [103:04] stress. You've got a lowgrade what we [103:05] call chronic inflammation and clotic [103:07] factors increase. And that's been shown [103:09] actually in proven in um a study that [103:11] was published in the Lancet a few years [103:12] ago where they did an MRI of the brain [103:16] of of young healthy people, adults, and [103:19] they followed them up but they looked at [103:22] the their subjective stress score. They [103:24] did like um questionnaires to measure [103:27] their stress levels subjectively. They [103:28] correlated that with looking at the [103:31] amygdala in the brain which is the [103:32] emotional center and then they looked at [103:35] clotting factors and they even looked at [103:36] heart attacks further down the line and [103:38] there was a perfect correlation with the [103:41] subjective stress score the amydala [103:42] lighting up the clotting factors in the [103:44] blood the inflammatory markers in the [103:45] blood and heart attack. So we we've got [103:46] the plausible mechanism. So if that's [103:48] the case Steve there must be a way of [103:51] curbing it and well how does one do [103:53] that? Well, the two most important [103:56] causes of stress in society are work and [103:58] relationship stress. So, those are [103:59] things people can potentially work on, [104:01] right? Potentially, but it's just be [104:03] aware of it. But one of the [104:04] interventions that I use with my [104:06] patients um is actually breath work and [104:08] meditation. [104:10] And one of the most extraordinary bits [104:11] of research that I came across [104:14] and it's in our documentary as well [104:16] because we go into a bit more detail on [104:17] it. I had to go and see it for myself to [104:19] believe it actually properly believe it. [104:21] um a cardiologist in India for more than [104:24] 20 years has been um through a lifestyle [104:28] approach has been reversing heart [104:30] disease. So he did a study called the [104:32] Mount Abu that is a place in northern [104:33] India uh where he's got a huge community [104:36] in a hospital people come to see him [104:38] there and um he puts him through this [104:40] lifestyle plan which in this study was [104:43] that you know they're devout Hindus so [104:44] it was a high fiber vegetarian diet it [104:46] was two 30-minute brisk walks a day okay [104:48] and something called Raj yoga meditation [104:51] for 40 minutes [104:53] which is a form of breath work but it's [104:54] also a bit of a spiritual transformation [104:56] as well it's about understanding where [104:58] your anger comes from and all that kind [105:00] of So it goes quite deep. And anyway, he [105:02] followed these people up who were [105:04] diagnosed with at least 50 to 70% [105:07] blockages in their arteries. They had [105:09] heart disease. For some reason, they [105:11] didn't want to have a um a bypass [105:13] operation or a stent or they couldn't [105:15] afford it and they wanted this lifestyle [105:18] plan. So he put them on a lifestyle [105:19] plan. He repeated their angagrams after [105:20] 2 years, right? He looked at the [105:22] arteries again and on the people that [105:24] had adeared to the plan, there was an [105:26] average reduction of the blockage of [105:27] 20%. [105:29] 70% became 50, 50 became 30. This is [105:32] unheard of. If you ask any cardiologist, [105:34] can heart disease reverse saying, "No, [105:35] I've never even seen it. It's not [105:36] possible, right?" But he showed this to [105:38] be the case. He then looked at his data [105:40] a bit in a bit more detail and said, [105:41] "Was it the diet? Was it the exercise, [105:44] the two or was it the stress reduction?" [105:46] The only of course they're all [105:48] important, but the only independent [105:49] factor for the reversal of the blockages [105:52] was 40 minutes of Raj Yoga meditation [105:54] per day. [105:57] Now I asked him, you know, he published [106:00] this data in what we call a um an [106:02] observational study. It wasn't what we [106:04] call a randomized trial where it was [106:05] just more rigorously done. And he said, [106:07] "Why have you not done the randomized [106:08] trial?" Said, "I have years ago." And he [106:12] showed me the data. And I was like, [106:12] "Wow, why didn't you publish this [106:14] anywhere? I couldn't get it published." [106:16] He invited and I could be wrong about [106:19] it. It was a it was senior it was a [106:21] senior cardiology society. can't [106:24] remember if the American Heart [106:25] Association but it was a scenist cardio [106:26] society in America [106:28] to um he invited them to India so he [106:30] could present his data he presented his [106:33] data to them and they basically thought [106:36] it was fascinating but in between the [106:38] lines they said to him you know we can't [106:41] publish this because it will affect our [106:42] stent business [106:45] and what's a stent business [106:46] stent is basically the heart stance like [106:48] as in it would you know I remember Steve [106:50] when I first um wrote an article the [106:53] first sort mainstream media article I [106:55] wrote with in 2011 [106:57] was me it was in the Observer newspaper [106:59] I'd met Jamie Oliver having written to [107:01] him saying can you sort hustle food out [107:03] and then I end up writing an article [107:04] called I mend hearts then I see our [107:06] hospitals serve junk food to my patients [107:10] uh basically saying listen we're going [107:11] to tackle this obesity epidemic tackle [107:12] heart disease we need to sort the diet [107:14] out and I remember one of the [107:16] cardiologists um who I knew a senior [107:19] cardiologist I was still a junior doctor [107:20] at this point kind of tongue and cheek [107:23] but many truths spoken in just said it [107:25] seem this is going to affect our our [107:27] business our stent business as in [107:28] operating on people as if it was a bad [107:30] thing that I was saying that we should [107:31] basically prevent heart disease right [107:34] there's a cultural problem here Steve [107:35] honestly I'm not this is this is a this [107:36] is a um a dirty secret if you like [107:39] within medicine unfortunately amongst [107:41] establishment figures is that they have [107:44] become so wedded and so close to these [107:48] tyrannical corporations or their own [107:50] self-interest that you know we're [107:52] missing a big trick here in terms of [107:53] what we can really do for patients. [107:56] In part, your other book here that I [107:59] have, I still can't pronounce this word. [108:01] Pop [108:01] popy diet. Pop. [108:03] Your popy diet, I guess, serves to [108:04] address many of these issues and to make [108:06] sure that our heart hearts stay healthy. [108:09] What I wanted you to do for me is if I'm [108:12] endeavoring to have a a good heart [108:14] health until I die, which I guess is [108:16] kind of impossible, but maybe I'll get [108:18] hit by a truck or something. Um, if I'm [108:20] endeavoring to have good heart health, [108:21] what should my daily rout in an optimal [108:24] situation? What should my daily routine [108:26] look like if I follow [108:28] the diet that you came up with, but also [108:30] if I'm thinking through all of the [108:31] potential things that can cause bad [108:33] health? [108:34] Sleep. [108:35] I wake up. So, I sleep for seven hours. [108:36] So, at least 7 hours sleep. Great. Tick. [108:39] Okay. [108:40] Um, eating real food. [108:42] Okay. So, breakfast is how many how many [108:45] meals a day should I have? Well, two to [108:47] three, whatever suits you. When you feel [108:49] hungry, eat till you're full. [108:50] Not seven, eight, nine, not [108:51] no just eat, you know, and also I [108:53] suppose if you're doing activity, then [108:54] you may, but the most important thing is [108:56] to avoid the ultrarocessed food and not [108:58] to have too much starch. [108:59] What about fasting? [109:01] Um, controversial area, mixed data. Um, [109:06] I think that in terms of, you know, I [109:08] have patients who feel benefit from [109:10] fasting and other people feel more [109:12] stressed. It depends where you are in [109:14] your life. If for example you're very [109:16] active and your sleep isn't good [109:18] actually fasting can make your stress [109:19] levels worse which is not good. It [109:21] causes cortisol to increase and there is [109:23] some data showing that happens. So it [109:25] depends where you are but I'm not averse [109:27] to fasting. It depends you know see how [109:28] people feel. [109:29] Okay. So I've woken up. I've had seven [109:30] hours of sleep. I've eaten breakfast [109:32] which was whole foods. So [109:34] yeah and and Okay. So I would say you [109:36] know whole fruit and vegetables ideally [109:39] um a mixture of of low sugar fruits if [109:41] you can ideally you know berries mixed [109:43] berries for example [109:44] if you can get at least five to seven [109:46] portions in that's great [109:48] um the the foods that are thought so the [109:50] the anti-inflammatory foods that have [109:53] got a reasonable body of evidence behind [109:55] them are things like extravirgin olive [109:57] oil is your base fat okay nuts and seeds [110:00] tree nuts almonds walnuts um hazelnuts [110:04] for example [110:05] oily fish at least a couple of times a [110:07] week, [110:08] right? And then I would say minimizing, [110:12] you know, the starch and the sugar, [110:13] okay? [110:14] And the rest of it doesn't matter. You [110:15] can have, you know, I have heart [110:16] patients ask me whether they can eat a [110:17] steak. I say absolutely it's not going [110:18] to cause, you know, it's very [110:19] nutritious. If you want to have a steak [110:20] two or three times a week, no issue. [110:22] Saturated fat in the diet isn't a [110:23] problem. I busted that myth. So butter, [110:26] cheese, for example, um red meat is not [110:29] going to have any adverse effect on your [110:31] heart. [110:32] Okay. So I've eaten my breakfast. You [110:34] want to enjoy your food as well, right? [110:35] Yeah. So, that's my sleep taking care of [110:37] my meals that day taken care of. [110:39] What else do I need to be thinking about [110:41] to optimize heart health? [110:42] Well, I suppose you got to think about [110:44] what level it's very subjective. You [110:47] know, if you're stressed [110:48] and if you're stressed, then you need to [110:49] think about what can you do about it. [110:51] And there are different things. Some [110:52] people find exercise um is good. Some [110:55] people do yoga, they do pilatees, some [110:58] people do breath work. So, try and find [111:00] I have an app called Calm which I listen [111:01] to. I I do at least 20 to 30 sometimes [111:06] 40 minutes of breath work every morning [111:07] when I wake up. It's the first thing I [111:08] do. Actually, [111:09] I'm going to do both. I'm going to do [111:10] breath work and I'm going to go for a [111:12] long workout. [111:14] Could is there such such a thing as too [111:17] much exercise? [111:17] Yeah. Unfortunately, yes. About 11% of [111:21] elite athletes by the time they reach 50 [111:23] will have scans that show very severe [111:26] blockages or a heart disease, right? Um, [111:30] and I think Steve, to be honest, it [111:33] might be genetic predisposition, but I [111:34] think a lot of those people, cuz I have [111:35] some of these people coming to me who [111:36] don't know why they've got diagnosed [111:37] with heart disease. And I remember one [111:38] lady I saw a few months ago, and she was [111:40] running something like [111:42] something crazy like 5 to 10 miles a [111:44] day, but on only 4 hours sleep, and she [111:48] was young and otherwise didn't have a [111:49] diabetes or anything else, but had heart [111:50] disease, had developed heart disease. [111:51] And I said, "This is probably because of [111:53] this." So uh I think that when you look [111:56] at heart disease and optimal levels of [111:58] exercise, it is actually the one thing I [112:00] think the guidelines are right about is [112:02] probably that 150 minutes of moderate [112:04] activity a week. So you know I again I I [112:06] follow my own advice and I [snorts] will [112:09] um you know I I used to run but you know [112:12] running can be quite damaging to the [112:13] knees especially as you get older. So I [112:14] I cycle and do exercise bike and [112:16] whatever else and I will get my heart [112:18] rate to about 115 beats a minute for 30 [112:20] minutes you know five times a week. One [112:22] study found that marathon runners [112:23] experience a frequency of heart attacks [112:25] and strokes similar to people who [112:27] already have heart disease suggesting [112:28] too much exercise is harmful which is in [112:31] your book statinfree. And um another [112:35] stat here is athletes who do more than [112:37] one hour of intense exercise per day, [112:39] four times um have four times the [112:41] frequency of breathing infections per [112:43] year compared to those who do moderate [112:45] activity. [112:45] Well, that's the other thing about [112:46] overex exercising. Well, it depresses [112:47] the immune system. That's well known. Uh [112:49] and in fact if you look at and a lot of [112:51] people do it for different reasons but [112:52] if you look at the the communities [112:53] around the world known as the blue zones [112:55] Steve you know where people have high [112:56] longevity. These people weren't pounding [112:57] it in the gym. They're just outside you [112:59] know they were gardening they were [113:00] moving. You don't need to be doing all [113:02] of that kind of stuff. People do it for [113:04] different reasons. I mean I I do it [113:05] sometime. Oh also for mental health it's [113:07] good. [113:07] You um didn't you publish an article? [113:09] You co-authored an article for the [113:12] British Journal of Sports and Medicine [113:13] called It's Time to Bust the Myth of [113:15] Physical Activity. [113:17] Yeah. Physical inactivity and obesity. [113:18] You can't outrun a bad diet. That was [113:20] the title of the article. And the point [113:22] was, and we make it very clear at the [113:24] beginning, that exercise has many [113:25] benefits for health, but weight loss is [113:27] not one of them. Because most of what [113:29] determines your weight gain, almost all [113:31] of it is to do with with what you eat. [113:33] And that discussion or that thinking, [113:35] whether it was about burning calories [113:37] actually came from the food industry. [113:38] They they they they manufactured that. [113:40] Um Coca-Cola, McDonald's, they would [113:42] push this. They even the Olympic Games [113:44] 2012, they were the main sponsors, [113:46] right? because for them they want to [113:48] distract from their unhealthy products [113:50] and say well the obesity epidemic is [113:51] being driven by people not you know not [113:53] exercising. [113:54] So on that day on this perfect day that [113:56] I'm creating in my mind I'm eating well [113:59] I've moved but not too much. I'm doing [114:01] breath work in the morning. I've slept 7 [114:03] hours a day and the last thing that from [114:05] looking at your 21-day immunity plan is [114:08] socializing. [114:10] Yeah. So so important. I think one of [114:12] the most important aspects for mental [114:13] health, physical health is the quality [114:16] of our relationships, friends, family. [114:19] Um people may laugh at this, but I [114:21] actually I actually prescribe hugging to [114:23] a lot of my patients. Uh especially [114:25] couples, you know. Um there is [114:27] definitely some benefits from that, you [114:29] know, uh and uh in terms of reducing [114:31] cortisol levels, etc. I think that's an [114:34] an issue in society in general. You know [114:36] we become we have been conditioned in a [114:38] way to think that we can just be [114:41] dependent on ourselves as individuals [114:43] and we don't need other people but [114:44] actually we do this is that's how we [114:46] evolved partly because it helps us it [114:48] helps us feel safe [114:49] hugging [114:51] I think it just it just yeah there is it [114:54] activates parts of the brain the [114:55] protection soothing mechanisms of the [114:57] brain and I think that is just an extra [114:59] element of it absolutely [115:02] and they it reduces cortisol and all [115:03] those things so it's going to stave [115:05] heart attacks. If we hug, we have less [115:07] chance of having a heart attack. [115:09] It's not not just about that. I think [115:11] it's also good for the immune system. So [115:12] the the people that did the original [115:14] cold studies on on cold viruses, this [115:17] was done, I think, in early 2000s. [115:18] Fascinating study. They inoculated [115:20] people with a cold virus. So they put [115:22] the the traditional cold virus whatever [115:24] into into people's, you know, nasal [115:26] passages and they looked at who [115:28] developed symptoms of a cold and who [115:30] didn't. And they looked and and before [115:32] they did that, they did these [115:33] questionnaires based upon several [115:35] different aspects of people's social [115:37] life. Are they involved in community [115:39] activities? How often do they meet their [115:41] friends? What's it like with their [115:42] partner? Etc., etc. And the people who [115:44] had the highest scores, only one in [115:46] three of those people developed a cold. [115:49] And the people on the other side that [115:51] were more maybe more lonely and weren't [115:52] interacting with other people who didn't [115:54] have good quality relationships, two out [115:56] of three of those people developed [115:58] colds. [115:59] So, it's not just about heart disease, [116:01] it's about the immune system as well. [116:02] Overall health [116:02] makes you think, doesn't it, if [116:03] loneliness really is killing us. Yeah. [116:05] Um, [116:06] we need to try and do more to end the [116:08] epidemic that is loneliness cuz the [116:09] stats seem to suggest it's going one way [116:11] and it's not a good way. [116:13] Um, and part of that issue as well, [116:15] Steve, which is a something we need to [116:17] think about with what's going on society [116:19] [snorts] is I do we've got a worsening [116:21] mental health crisis. We've got less [116:23] trust in government. One of the ways [116:26] societies progress is people being able [116:29] to trust each other by people not being [116:31] afraid to speak the truth. And more than [116:34] ever, and certainly I've seen it in [116:35] medicine, we have got to a situation and [116:38] the COVID vaccine is a microcosm of [116:40] something much bigger where people are [116:42] afraid to speak the truth. And that [116:44] gives us an element of uncertainty, [116:45] distrust, and it makes us more stressed. [116:49] So what this means, what it comes back [116:51] to is ultimately part of the solution to [116:54] the mental, physical, social well-being [116:56] crisis, heart disease is thinking about [117:00] acting from a place of virtue and [117:02] ethics, right? Thinking about, you know, [117:05] your intentions, being honest, not [117:07] manipulating other people for money. [117:08] This is unfortunately where the the the [117:10] capitalist system or the current [117:11] economic system has taken us and the [117:13] corporatization of human beings as a [117:15] result. And that is very detrimental to [117:17] our physical and mental health. [117:19] What was your father's name? [117:21] Kash. [117:21] Kash. Son, never change your loyalties. [117:32] Yeah, loyalty was very important to him. [117:34] You know, those I was brought with those [117:35] core values about um honesty, integrity, [117:39] being loyal to people, how to be a good [117:42] human being, how to be the best version [117:43] of yourself, Steve. Um, that's what it's [117:46] about, you know, for your benefit and [117:49] for the benefit of others. [117:50] He said that to you when you were [117:51] younger and you were considering [117:53] switching football team. Um, he told you [117:56] to never change your loyalties. And you [117:57] des I've got the eulogy you wrote for [118:00] your father when he passed away here. [118:02] And it's interesting some of the the [118:03] words and phrases that you used in the [118:05] eulogy to him because they seem to be [118:06] quite pertinent to our conversation [118:07] today. The ultimate purpose of knowledge [118:09] is to reduce human suffering. And that [118:11] true wisdom [118:14] to achieve that end only comes from [118:16] dialogue. [118:17] Yeah, that was uh that was a Socratic [118:20] Socrates quote. True wisdom comes only [118:22] from dialogue. Um, [118:25] understanding others starts from [118:26] understanding oneself. And to get to a [118:30] greater truth, one has to be able to [118:32] question one's own beliefs. And to get [118:36] there, to achieve that, you have to [118:38] engage uh with other people and have [118:40] discussions. but from a place of [118:41] compassion where you are open to [118:43] listening to other people because we can [118:44] only get to a greater truth if you [118:46] listen to all different sides on a [118:49] particular issue and that comes from [118:52] having that conversation. So I think [118:53] that's a huge component of it all which [118:55] I think we're losing Steven society [118:56] there's so much polarization you know. [118:58] Yeah, and that's yeah, I completely [119:00] agree and you know it's it's difficult [119:01] obviously because um conversation can be [119:05] fatal. It can be um especially medical [119:08] conversation conversation about things [119:10] like vaccines or health information. So [119:13] it's very delicate information but um [119:15] the what can also be fatal is the lack [119:17] of conversation i.e. not seeing ideas [119:20] collide. And it's it's interesting as [119:22] someone who speaks to a lot of health [119:24] professionals on this podcast, I'm not [119:26] an expert in health and people will [119:27] often criticize me for that and say, you [119:29] know, um this they said this thing wrong [119:31] or this thing wrong. But I think the [119:33] place that I've got to now is to present [119:35] every opinion that I can. [119:36] Yeah. [119:37] And hopefully to will people to be able [119:39] to make up their own minds. And I hope I [119:41] tried to uh present some of the other [119:44] side of um the at least the rebuttals so [119:47] people can can be curious and we don't [119:49] we're not pushing in any particular [119:51] direction. I have no bloody dog in the [119:52] fight. I don't you know [119:53] and I'm not I want to have that [119:54] conversation, Steve. I think part of the [119:56] problem with all of this is that that [119:57] conversation isn't even happening. We [119:58] want to have that conversation. We want [120:00] rebuttals. We want a count of view. [120:01] Yeah. [120:02] But the ignoring of even the [120:04] conversation that for me is is is [120:06] unforgivable. [120:07] It's a shame. I think podcasts are doing [120:08] a good job of kind of well I think a lot [120:10] of them are doing a good job of just [120:12] having that conversation. [120:13] Yeah. [120:13] Um because it's long form and there's I [120:16] mean there's a there's a comment section [120:17] so people are going to discuss below and [120:19] there's you know there's lots of podcast [120:21] there's lots of information being thrown [120:23] out into the world and um everything [120:25] we've talked about today will be linked [120:27] below as much of the the links as we [120:29] can. So, if anybody is curious about [120:31] anything we've discussed or any stats, [120:33] you'll send me your stuff. Absolutely. [120:34] And I'll link it below and I'll I'll [120:36] link the NHS and the British Heart [120:38] Foundation and anyone else below so [120:39] people can have a think about that. But [120:41] I am a big fan of conversation and I'm a [120:44] big fan of having both sides of an [120:46] argument and trying to make my own mind [120:48] up on things and find the nuance. I find [120:50] the truth is usually somewhere in the [120:51] middle. Yeah. [120:52] So, I think it's important because, you [120:53] know, one of the things I think we have [120:55] to we have to reflect on is some of [120:57] those amazing people you talked about [120:58] like Martin Luther King and I don't know [121:00] whether it's the suffragettes or Gandhi [121:01] or whoever it might be, their ideas in [121:04] their time were received equally [121:06] horrifically and um now those are things [121:09] that we all consider to be true and very [121:11] important as it relates to maybe science [121:12] or just social issues on equality. So [121:16] with that in mind, we have to also be [121:18] humble to the fact that idea that might [121:20] be important might at first offend us. [121:23] It might trigger us. It might be counter [121:25] to the public narrative or or to the [121:28] current available science. But I don't [121:30] think it should be censored. [121:32] No. And I I would say that people [121:35] listening to this just think about one [121:37] thing. One of the reasons that we seek [121:40] the truth and greater truths is that a [121:43] life lived in darkness has no meaning. [121:48] Amen. We have a closing tradition on [121:50] this podcast where the last guest leaves [121:51] a question for the next guest not [121:52] knowing who they're going to be leaving [121:54] it for. And the question left for you is [121:58] of all the most amazing superstar people [122:01] you have met in your life, [122:04] what was the quality that made them [122:07] superstars? And can it be taught? [122:11] A love for humanity. [122:14] That was a quality that made them [122:16] superstars in whatever they were doing. [122:18] It was to give back to society in some [122:21] way. Whether it was entertainment, [122:23] whether it was music, whether it was [122:24] sport, but based upon a love for [122:27] humanity. [122:34] Stands up to be true. I just went [122:35] through a list of superstars that I know [122:36] of in my brain and I think that's [122:37] certainly the case. And it's funny cuz [122:38] the people that I think of as real [122:40] superstars aren't necessarily famous. [122:41] They're not rich. They're not anything [122:43] like that. They're just like the best [122:44] people, the ones that I really aspire to [122:46] be more like. But the one that made them [122:48] stand out for me, the one quality that [122:50] made them extra special in th those [122:52] particular people um was despite them [122:56] being so excellent is they had a huge uh [123:00] um a wonderful humility about them [123:08] and they can find you everywhere, [123:09] especially on Twitter. Got a big Twitter [123:11] following. Um [123:12] and your books as well. I will link your [123:14] books below in the description for [123:15] anybody that wants to read them. I've [123:17] these two books in particular, the one [123:19] that I can't pronounce, the [123:21] Pop Pop diet, [123:23] a 21-day lifestyle plan. Lose weight, [123:26] feel great, and drastically reduce your [123:27] risk of type two diabetes and heart [123:28] disease, and a statin-free life, a [123:30] revolutionary life plan for tackling [123:32] heart disease without the use of statins [123:34] are two that I'd certainly really, [123:35] really recommend. Thank you, Dr. Thank [123:38] you for the work you do, the way that [123:40] you do your work, and thank you for [123:41] having the courage to be a [snorts] loud [123:45] counteracting voice in society where we [123:47] do need counteracting voices. I don't [123:48] think anybody can ever argue with that. [123:50] And the way in which you do it and your [123:51] intentions of doing it, I think are [123:53] wonderful. Um, and I think they're a [123:56] real credit to the two wonderful people [123:58] that raised you. So, thank you for your [123:59] time today. Thank you for doing the work [124:00] that you do. I'm going to continue [124:01] following it. I follow you on Twitter [124:02] and I've been following you for many, [124:04] many years, I think, I believe. Um, and [124:06] I very much enjoy consuming your [124:09] information because I know that you [124:10] don't you have there's a certain [124:12] fearlessness with you that is going to [124:15] deliver what is true regardless of [124:17] consequence. And that is a useful source [124:20] of information to have in my world where [124:21] I'm I'm trying to advance my thinking [124:22] and I care more about progress and truth [124:25] than I do something feeling comfortable. [124:28] So, I highly recommend everyone go check [124:30] you out on Twitter as well. [music] [124:33] Heat. Heat. N. [124:39] [music] [124:43] Heat. Heat. [music] [124:46] [singing] [124:50] [music]