The Doctor That Got Banned For Speaking Out: “We've Been Lied To About Medication & COVID!”, “After 2021 Heart Attacks Increased 25%!” Dr Aseem Malhotra

26:00I thought this is unacceptable. So I expose this and became a massive story BBC news. And when the BBC presented saying, Dr. Mahatcha, what's going on wrong with the NHS? Why is it failing? Why is this happening? I said, as multifactorial, but I said, one of the most important reasons is you failed. We failed for years to address the root cause of what's driving stress on the system, taking on the excesses of big food and big farmer. But I said, right now, we've got 80 to 100 ,000 NHS staff who are refusing to have the COVID vaccine. This would be a crisis. They're going to lose their jobs. This is this bandach needs to be overturned.

26:36It's not scientific. It's not ethical. So I got I got that into the mainstream and ultimately we end up overturning you right the the mandate. But there was a backlash Steve behind the scenes and I've not been public about this before. So I'm going to tell you this for the first time, because I think it's time I tell the story. Shortly after me going on GB news as a doctor who'd had the vaccine, I'd been on Good Morning Britain to say it was likely safe and effective to then talking about we should maybe look into this and maybe pause the situation because of these heart issues that need to be investigated.

27:10I received an email from the Royal College of Physicians. This is the oldest medical institution in the world saying Dr. Mahatra, we have received a number of anonymous complaints from other fellows that you in reference to my GB news interview that you are spreading anti -vax misinformation. And you've got four weeks to respond to this and they were saying all the different sanctions that could happen because of me doing this right. Steve at that point, I thought if we are going to get a pause on this vaccine and really investigate it, it's because of such an indoctrination because so many people billions of people around the world have taken this.

27:51And therefore the battle to expose it is going to be harder than anything I've ever done. The only way in my only chance is to get it published in a peer review journal and then to get it into the news. I spent nine months at that stage literally eating, breathing, sleeping, speaking to two Pfizer whistleblowers, speaking to eminent scientists in expertise I didn't have around immunology and vaccine development. Of course I had the understanding of cardiology, you know, better than anybody in this particular field in this particular area. And when I did that research and looked at it, I first of all concluded that then absolutely needs to be a suspension of the vaccine because what happened by the summer of 2022.

28:36And this is actually the most crucial and important piece of data on its own, which should have been enough to suspend it and actually suggest that it probably shouldn't have been rolled down the first place is that those trials that were done by Pfizer Moderna, which led to the all the media reports, 95, 100 % effective. You know, the approval by the regulator, the rollout, the coercion, the mandates, they were reanalyzed by some very eminent scientists, including the associate at the BMJ, the one of the world's top epidemiologists and they published in the journal vaccine, which is the premier journal for vaccines.

29:13And they were able to get new data that was made available on health Canada's website and the FDA in America's website. And what they did in their reanalysis of the original high quality clinical trials is 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 life changing event. And then you were to be hospitalized with COVID, and this is during the early phase, right, this is during the most, the most mostly little strain for all age groups. Yes, well, absolutely well, they put all age groups together.

29:48So on average and all age groups, that's a very good question. But what's missing is that actually, okay, is there a benefit of the greater than harm in certain age groups, but we can indirectly answer that in a second. So that was a regional trial. So an average, it was more harmful, the beneficial, okay. But even before talking about all age group Steve, a 1 in 800 harm rate for a vaccine is completely unacceptable in the sense that we have pulled other vaccines in the past for much less harm. The swine flu vaccine was suspended globally because it was found to cause, Guillain Barry syndrome, a debilitating neurological condition and 1 in 100 ,000 people.

30:29Roads of virus vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children, a 1 in 10 ,000. So you've already got a harm rate of 1 in 800 irrespective of, right. So that first and foremost should be a red flag to say, hold on, this is too much. Well, they say harm rate, how do they, what's the range of definitions of harm? Well, in this one, they categorize serious harm as it caused you to be hospitalized. It caused a disability or something that was life changing. Now, of course, that can incorporate lots of different things, but of those, and I spoke to lead researcher, I know work with him on other things, 40 % of those serious harms were actually related to clotting disorders like lung clots, heart attacks, etc.

31:11And make sure I'm super clear here because I don't understand the data you're citing. So you're saying that they found 1 in 800 people would have serious harm or harm. A serious harm serious serious on 100 people in the trials, 1 in 800, yeah, 1 in 800 serious harm, right. Now, just to give you perspective, so you can balance it out, just because this is important. So question you've asked is really important. We didn't have any good real world data at that point on, can we separate vaccinated from unvaccinated to look at what the hospitalization rate would be for COVID, for example, in people who took the vaccine versus the people that didn't according to age group.

31:52That data in the whole world, the only country to get make that data available was the UK, and they did that in the beginning of 2023. So January last year. And what did that show after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, Steve, if you were over 70, so this is a highest risk group, you had to vaccinate 2500 people to prevent one person being hospitalized with COVID. This was with the different strain, the only come strain because the original strain was yeah, it was they didn't yeah, it was you're right, it was with the Omicron strain. So that was still, but it gave us a ballpark figure that even that so it's like so say a patient comes to me and says doc what are the benefits of this drug as a prevention, whatever else.

32:37And I say to them, well, if you take this, there's a one in 2005, the chance it will help you prevent you being hospitalized. I'll be honest with Steve, I mean, in medicine in all the drugs I've used and all the data I know about different medications and heart disease, et cetera. That figure, I mean, it's a very serious issue, but that figure is a joke. I mean, there's nothing of that of such poor. And then when you get under the eight when you get to people under the age of say 50, you're talking about having to vaccinate maybe several hundred thousand to prevent one for that the first strain of COVID as well, because we do not have the data on that we don't have that data on that we do in my paper, which I published actually we did have some data on Delta.

33:17And if I remember correctly the data on the over 70s, the there's also problems with this a little bit because it's not corrected for other factors such as socioeconomics, et cetera, risk factors of you that might make people more vulnerable. So if I remember correctly from that paper, if you're over 70, that was about one into fifth Delta was a worst strain actually so about one into 50. On the British heart foundation website, I'm sure you've read this. Yeah, just just read out what they say on there. It says that up to one in 10 ,000 people with the Pfizer vaccine might experience are at risk of my myocarditis or pericarditis.

33:55If I pronounce that quickly, yeah up to one in 10 ,000 people for the Moderna vaccine and it's not possible to submit other vaccines because they're not frequently used in the UK or three of these COVID 19 vaccines are M R NA vaccines designed to target the Omni constrict Omni constrain. And at the top of this is says the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID 19 vaccine is very low. How do you respond to that? Do you think you agree with that? No, I don't agree with it at all. I think there are a number of layers to respond to this. I think the first thing to say Steve is the British heart foundation with a great respect to them and they do a lot of good work.

34:29Overall, they're 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 farmer. And I can say that categorically because I know one of the the chief advisor to heart disease for the British heart foundation with the great respect to him is a guy called Professor Rory Collins University of Oxford. And they have said similar things when it comes to statin drugs, which we'll talk about later. But that person, the people who advise them are people who are heavily funded and linked to farmer taking their institutions, taking hundreds of millions, for example.

35:12So there's a huge bias set to start with. That's the first thing. But for me, what the British heart foundation are not doing is actually countering. And I'd love them to counter that because I'm very open for the debate here is that you've got a reanalysis of and they know this. The best way of determining serious harm from any drug is actually looking. One of the best ways is the highest quality level of evidence, which is the randomized control charge, which is well led to the approval. When you've got an independent reanalysis in the peer reviewed journal saying more harm than good from the beginning, that in itself.

35:45And then we look at real world data, Steve. There's so many other bits of data that they are ignoring. Basically, to answer your question, they're ignoring lots of other data, which is very clear, whether it's all topsy data, whether it's other studies that came out of Israel that showed, for example, this was published in a journal called Nature Scientific Reports. And again, they ignore this. They don't talk about it. It's like, hold on guys, you're not even mentioning this data. They showed. And this is really most disturbing. In 2021, there was a 25 % increase in heart attacks and or cardiac arrests.

36:19In people age between 16 and 39, which was associated with the COVID vaccine, but not associated with COVID. How do they how do they tease out or thinking about, you know, the increase in heart related conditions around a pandemic and following the pandemic and in much of your work. And I think in this book, I can't actually pronounce the word POP diet. The POP diet. You talk about how these other sort of lifestyle factors like community friendships, relationships, stress, mental health, being sedentary, sedentary, all of these things can contribute to heart problems. So when I think about the pandemic, I go, people weren't seeing their friends.

36:57We were stressed more than ever. People were losing their jobs. They're a furloughed. Yeah, they had mental health. You know, we saw the mental health stats explode. Yeah. All the factors there that are linked to heart disease. So how do we know that it wasn't those factors of the pandemic that caused an increase in heart related issues. And how can we tease that out from the vaccine? Really good question. Because remember, I also said that early on before I realized the vaccine might be playing a role. I actually thought that was that was the most likely explanation of the increased heart attacks, lockdown stress, poor diet, etc.

37:30You would expect to see an increase in your wood. And I think it has played a role. Steve, for sure, it has played a role. But then when you look at the quality of data to say how much of a role that's played, that it's on a different level. When you look at the vaccine, when you look at the plausible mechanism, you look at the types of people that are dying young people and stuff like that. It doesn't fit. I'll be honest, my personal view, it is a primary driver without any shadow of doubt in my mind and a personal view of the excess deaths. As a scientist, I'll say it's a likely, insignificant contributor factor, but probably the most likely, because another aspect to all of this is what we call pharmacovigilance reports.

38:11So these are reports that are done by members of the public when they have an adverse reaction to any drug. And it's not easy to fill in. You fill in these what we call yellow cards game. You can get it online and you send it off to your doctor or to the regulator. Those reports, and I've thought my career have never seen the extent like, for example, I'll give you an example, after 9 .7 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was ultimately pulled right AstraZeneca, of course, was also one of the code vaccines. There were 800 ,000 in this country 800 ,000 yellow card reports. Now some of them are not going to be serious, serious, but people don't fill in a yellow card report if you've had a bit of a fever after having a vaccine.

38:52They felt quite ill, ill enough to that's already. And then within that is estimated maybe one in five of those from other data was suggest serious harm. So other data from reporting and with the so with about I think 30 million doses, if it was probably that 30 million doses of Pfizer, we had about 500 ,000 yellow card reports in this country, right, which is still a lot, you know, it's one in 60 yellow card reports. Now they're all not going to be super serious hospitalization death, whatever else. But when you put all of the data together, Steve, that it paints a picture that makes it look as clear as a day, that anybody doubting, you know, it should be the the evidence should be this is the primary cause of the excess deaths until proven otherwise.

39:35That's the level of evidence, Steve, but it's just being ignored, it's being ignored. And I can talk about why it's being ignored. One of the things I've been sort of gaps in my head that I've been keen to fill is do you believe that if we hadn't have introduced the vaccine more or less people would have survived COVID because I've got close friends of mine that got COVID and I watched them go from very healthy looking people to basically skeletons, give for actually good friend, one of the CEO's of my company, his dad went from being a very healthy man to being basically looking like a skeleton and almost died.

40:07And then I've got I know of other people that did die. So I think in the grand scheme of things when we think about vaccines, was it a net positive that we had a vaccine? There is from everything I know now, I have slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that the COVID vaccine introduction has had a catastrophic overall net negative effect on the population and society. And one of the and let me just caveat this because you've mentioned the fact that people suffered from COVID and I'm not denying that I've got patient Steve, the I see that have had long COVID, they weren't vaccinated, OK, and have suffered quite badly.

40:51Most of the most serious aspects of COVID happened early on in 2020 and predominantly affected the elderly, we've got all of that data now that's been reanalyzed by one of the world's top scientists and even looking back now, essentially, if you are under 70, even from the beginning, your risk of serious harm from COVID is in the ballpark figure of the flu, right? And even I actually was wrong, I wrote an article in European scientists in March in April 2020, because I actually initially started making a lot of noise about why we not to what lifestyle with COVID to help people mitigate, you know, you improve their immune system.

41:33And I said, you know, talking to a friend of mine who works in the business, the United States, in New York, I've done work with and he said, I've never seen anything like this is devastating some of my colleagues are dying. So I've no doubt that at the very beginning and the early strain of the virus, it was really bad, especially for vulnerable people, people that be city, etc. Because I remember getting cove, I was actually live on the top floor of this building and I remember I've never experienced anything quite as bizarre as the symptom set that I had when I got COVID, the fact that it's 3 am in the morning, I don't take medicine.

42:05So, in fact, 3 am in the morning, I'm lying flat on my floor ordering I be proof and on Uber Eats because my back, I just had the most bizarre like back pain. And so I was having to like lie flat on the floor because I can't even lie in bed, it was so bad. It's just this weird set of symptoms that I've never had before on my part, unless you lost her smell and taste and it was so unusual. It was so unusual. There's not been a time in my lifetime that people have lost their smell and taste on mass. So when you hear it compared to the flu, you know, this was not the flu, this is something different.

42:37Yes. No, the symptoms are very different. And I think now it's accepted that we won't go into a lot of detail, but I think one of the reasons is that I've never had a lot of fun. As well, it was human engineered, you know, it almost certainly the evidence points at being a lab leak, right? So it had a very, you're right, it was very different to any other virus. But you used to be a conspiracy theory. I know, right? No, it's not conspiracy theory. I know exactly. Yeah, when you hear that lab in Wuhan, that were messing around with viruses. And then we decided to put the blame on like a market store.

43:05But I think now the general consensus is that it probably came from that lab in Wuhan. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. And I've spoken to, in fact, I spent time with actually the scientists that first went public with it who identified it, Guy in America. Sorry, in Australia. So yeah, that came from a lab. So I think it had these different strains, these losses, and so on. But in terms of serious illness, it was there at the beginning now when you look back, I think essentially there were vulnerable elderly, but, you know, who suffered, especially people in nursing homes with a lot of deaths there.

43:37But there's so many other components to this. So one is, did we institute the correct treatments? A lot of people were killed because they weren't managed properly in ITU, you know, in terms of putting people, incubating them, putting on respirators when they didn't need it. And that in itself has a risk. Some of the wrong treatments were given. There were other treatments now that we look back that probably would have been helpful, things like Ivan Mectin, which I know has been a bit controversial, but was very, it's the very safer than paracetamol. Right, so first you know harm, okay. But it may have done some good and a lot of people and doctors around the world that used it in several thousand.

44:10There's a doctor in South Africa that used it in 14 ,000 patients, including many elderly, not a single one died from COVID and this is early on. So all these things that we missed, we missed a lifestyle intervention. So all those things are there. But by the time you get to the end of 2020, the beginning of 2021, there are so many things that happen, Steve, that you have to think about before you introduce a vaccine. One is what is the state of the virus right now and it already mutated to some degree and become less lethal. There is natural immunity, which we know is very powerful. And but the issue with the vaccine is and certainly it was probably there from the beginning.

44:45We know that when one looks at the original trials, there was a, and this is what the drug companies have done for a long, long period of time. They will mislead people using statistics about the benefits. So you've something called relative risk reduction. Let me just explain this because you can apply this to statins as well is they presented the benefit as a 95 % protection against infection. Remember that figure 95 % right. And it was what we call relative risk reduction. So if you've got for example two groups in a trial, say 101 trial in one group and 100 another. And let's just say let's give you an example of statins and you're following them up over five years to look at a drug to see if it benefits them in preventing having a heart attack.

45:31In one group, they get the dummy pill. And you follow them up over five years and then the people that got the dummy pill in fact you didn't do anything different. Two of them suffered a heart attack. In the other group, the other 100 people that were followed over five years, who got the pill, the drug right only one suffer the heart attack. So you've reduced the heart attack risk by 50 % right two to one right 50%. But you've only prevented one heart attack you've treated a hundred people, but you prevented one heart attack out of three hundred. Yeah, that makes sense. So that's a 1 % absolute benefit.

46:06In other words, when you explain that to a patient when I ask when I have engaged in sort of what we call informed consent shared decision making. And they asked me about drug. I'll say this gives you a 1 % chance. If you take this drug religiously, you're preventing heart attack. Now, you apply that to the original COVID vaccine trials, which by the way, have so many of the problems with them because even those trials were conducted and analyzed and designed by the drug industry. I mean, this is one of the biggest myths that needs to be busted Steve out there for most doctors. As well as members of the public, medical knowledge is under commercial control.

46:39But most people don't know that. So what happens is they did the trial, but let's just talk about what the results that their results showed us a 95 % relative risk reduction against infection. They didn't show any reduction in COVID death by the way in that trial, right. They just said prevent from infection, but we then presume it may then prevent right reduce death rates. The absolute risk reduction from infection at the beginning was one was 0 .84%. 1 in 119. So that's how many people you need to vaccinate prevent one infection, which actually people were not told that. So imagine you're thinking should hate the vaccine, say, well, Steve, there's a one less than 1 % chance that it's going to prevent you getting infected.

47:21People won't tell that. But then reduce my chance of getting seriously ill, right. No, but we've then talked about that. Haven't we? Like as in when you look at the data, certainly beginning of 2023 that was looking over the previous year 2022, you have to vaccinate 2 ,500 people to rent one person getting serious ill with COVID, right. If you're over 70, with the second strip with the other strain, but it was the strain and it may have been better to see if you're right. It may probably was better, but it's still numbers are still much smaller than what people will lead to believe. And by the way, Steve, the narrative at the beginning, they kept changing the goalposts.

47:53Remember, it wasn't about preventing serious illness and death. It was all about preventing infection. You are not in America. You've seen it all over CNN, Rachel Maddow, and she's saying it so passionately. If you take this vaccine, you are not going to get COVID and calling anyone who's who questions it, being a science tonight. I mean, Jesus Christ. So my last question on that before I said what I was going to say is, do you think there would have been less deaths overall if we hadn't have had a vaccine? Yes. You think there would have been less deaths by now when you look at it. So I think over time.

48:29So where we are now. So if we hadn't have introduced the vaccine for that first strain of COVID, you think there'd be less deaths. Okay. If I was to, I still think that if, okay, this is very nuanced, but important. If the vaccine had only been offered to the high -risk people at the beginning, say the over 70s or people with multiple risk factors, I think there is a case to be made. I'm going to counter that in a minute though, but there is a case to be made that there was overall benefit versus harm. But there's a problem. One, there wasn't true informed consent. Right. Because those figures, those numbers weren't given to pay people about the prevention of infection, etc.

49:17Right. And two, if you have an average serious harm rate of 1 -800, any scientist, even regulators who have said, hold on a minute, this is way too high. This is too risky. And this is, by the way, Steve, only the short term. Because remember, this vaccine didn't go through what other vaccines have gone through, which is five to 10 years of safety testing. So if you throw all those caveats in and use informed consent, I can guarantee you with all of my knowledge expertise, experience with patients when you engage in these conversations, most of those elderly people will probably have still refused it.

49:54But yes, I think there is a case to be made that the benefits may have weighed the harms in those high -risk people at the very beginning in the short term. Absolutely. When I think about Rachel Maddow and what she said on TV about, it's going to stop the spread of infection, etc. I can have a degree of empathy. Because if that's the information you're being fed, and you are a public facing broadcaster, and it's being fed to you by scientists, and it's been fed to you by the NHS and whoever else, and very credible people that you've been raised to believe and trust. You're a public facing broadcaster.

50:33What else are you going to say? You're not going to say the opposite. You're not going to sit on the fence. You're job is to broadcaster. It's the news. And I think you did the same. You said early, you got a good morning break or something. And I'm not blaming Rachel Maddow here. I'm just saying that the indoctrination that came through the mainstream media was so strong through people at Rachel Maddow. And why is that important, Steve? I had a conversation with the Chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021 when I was campaigning to overturn vaccine mandates for healthcare workers.

51:01He had access to Sadja Javid. I had a previous report with my handcock, but he had obviously left by then. And I spoke to his name, Sean Nagpur, and I explained everything I knew about the vaccine after looking at data at that point. I hadn't published it at this point, but I went through it in a logical way. Chairman of the BMA, by the way, not just some random person. And he said a seam. No one appears to critically appraise the evidence and the vaccine as well as you have from our to our chair. Most of my colleagues who are in senior policy, you know, medical positions, establishing positions are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC.

51:40It's super difficult. It's extraordinary though. I think it's really difficult because if I, if you're dealing with lots of people dying on mass and it's happened very, very quickly and people are just dropping dead and you're seeing, you know, hospitals being overrun. You've got to, you got to tread carefully with the information you're putting out there. So if the scientific information comes in early and maybe a little bit too soon before it's really been vetted and triple checked saying one thing, and your desperate for answers, I can see why a group of people would say, okay, this is the best information.

52:15And then to go against that information could potentially cause tons of harm. So I can also imagine why a group of people would be really slow to then change their mind away from it because you're dealing with lots of people. And Steve, I was that person too. So I'm with you on that 100%. I think where I'm taking this is the system. If it had been more transparent early on, and this is where I've been, you know, banging my, you know, head against a brick wall to some degree for about a decade. If there was more transparing in the system, we would have had better information even from the beginning, but that information was kept commercially confidential because of the system that really is geared towards supporting the interests of big farm and not in the interests of people's health.

52:57And that and if that's the key point here, right, this is we're looking back over time thing. How did this happen? How do we allow this to happen? We need to go deeper. So how do we stop this happening again in the future? So we have better information. That's all I'm saying. Do you think it is malicious at like a government level? Do you think no, you don't think it is not at all. I know many politicians, very senior people, cross party, some of them I call my friends, many of them come to me for medical advice, right. In fact, one of them, you know, he lost 100 pounds on my pioppy diet with Tom Watson, the deputy labor party.

53:31So and these genuinely by and large are decent people that want to do the right thing, but they are also fed, you know, misinformation by lobbyists. They take as expert opinion or information stuff that has been curated for the purposes of the interests of big food, a big farmer, you know, when I campaigned on getting the sugar tax introduced, you know, I wrote articles in the BMJ, I started rang every newspaper and I remember I thought we're going to win this because the front page of the Daily Mail was sugars in you tobacco. And that put pressure on the then sex state Jeremy hunt because the mail then decided they were going to go right and of course, you know, that government conservative government, particularly, you know, influenced by what the Daily Mail writes because they are traditionally one of their supporters.

54:15But there was a story around that time where they expose and it was on the front page that government ministers in terms of obesity strategy. How do we solve the obesity epidemic had had 99 meetings with representatives of the food industry and not a single meeting with a public health doctor, for example. So I know how that happened that obviously that the system should be more transparent to make sure that they understand that those those politicians, but many of them were shocked, you know, when I, when I told them this information, they trust me. One of them was a very see a former government minister who said a scene, you know, this is she shocked by it, but now understands it, they were captured as well.

54:56But we were in state of fear, Steve as well, we let's not underestimate that very many we were all scared we didn't know what we were dealing with. And of course, we have to have empathy for ourselves when you're in a state of fear, right, for all be it, you know, I think it was a big error to some degree and everybody was scared. And I don't think it was malicious to create that fear initially. It stops us, you know, being able to be being able psychologically inhibits your ability to engage in critical thinking. And all of us were in that position. Is there a risk now that if there was a deadly vaccine, deadly virus that broke out across the world, people are so scared of vaccines now that they would not go and get it.

55:36Because there's something I've said to my friend, they are like, we've gone to a point now where I think so many people are skeptical about vaccines that if something does come from another lab somewhere, and it is really fatal and the government stand on that podium again and say, hands face space, whatever it was that slogan and they say, we need you to all go get this vaccine. Who's going to go get it? Yeah, no, I agree. I don't like that situation. I don't want it to be in this situation, but you're right. There will be another pandemic. There is a big risk. And the way around that is, and this is what we taught as doctors, right, it's one of the things that is ingrained into us as a medical school, is that when you make a mistake, you tell the patient.

56:23Patients are very forgiving if they think and know that you acted from a place of good intent, because mistakes happen, things go wrong. This is what we need as a meoculpour, right? I was willing to do that. I mean, in some way I was partly responsible, certainly the very early stage to support a vaccine rollout. But I know that the most important thing for me to do when new information comes available and medicine again is not an exact science it evolves. Let's play that out. Let's play that out. So if we do it, if we had a situation where the, I know the scientists that said really positive things about the vaccine, then it was side effect free or whatever they come out now and they say we were totally wrong.

57:05And they say we got it so let's play that scenario. What would happen the next day on social media is everybody who was criticized or critiqued or lost their job or was, I don't know, in some way penalized for their views that there might be side effects that we're not talking about would immediately go to their base of their audience and say, I told you so. The conspiracy theorist on the internet who are really extreme that believe that there's a group of people wearing like tin hats that have come up with this idea they would be empowered. And what you then have is a situation where another fact another pandemic rolls in from a faraway land.

57:44Those people said, listen, you know, those people that you said you're such a trying to say it would fit my mind. It would fuel the narrative that vaccines are bad and less like people would be less likely to take them because we're not driven by facts, that's graphs and figures were driven by emotion. Yeah, it's much more powerful. Yeah, then just if a scientist standing there and showing me a graph, it's how I feel which matters the most. And if I felt like I was betrayed and lied to, there's no chance that I'd run down and get another jab or something in my arm. It's an uncomfortable truth that needs facing those Steve because if we don't face it, these problems are going to carry on.

58:22We're not going to improve the situation by ignoring it and sweeping under the carpet. So there will be that you're right. There will be that backlash. I myself have had that right. I've had people, you know, I got heckled, you know, a talk I gave on this for the first time when I spoke at it in London. I was part of it all your all the stuff. Yeah, absolutely. I got you know, a split is the throwing at me. And I understand where that emotion comes from, but at the end of the day, the only way we can progress and evolve is it just accepting. But that, you know, because we want to then it's not just about saying we got this wrong.

58:56It's actually explaining to people and saying, OK, we thought we were doing the right thing. These are problems in the system we weren't aware of. Most people are not aware of this. We need to resolve this and move forward with greater transparency. And over time now, OK, within the immediate aftermath, of course, there's going to be that emotional reaction. There's going to be a backlash. If there happened to be a pandemic within a short space of time after that admission, yes, it may well be that people aren't going to go and take vaccines. But why should they, Steve? Vaccines can save you like no, no, no, I'm talking about a new anything new.

59:25I'm not talking about so yes, absolutely traditional vaccine. I mean, I'm still a big subscriber and supportive. Let me just make this clear, which is for vaccines in my paper that I wrote, I said, you know, estimates just vaccines have saved four to five million lives a year. And a serious harm rate of vaccines. I think there's of course, there's going to be nothing's completely safe. No drug is farm clogged and it's completely safe. But just in terms of published data, right? Probably still an exaggeration, but still it gives you it gives you a comparison. Serious harm rate for traditional vaccines, one to two per million.

59:54All right. People are very smart, though, including me when it comes to when I hear the word vaccine, I think all vaccines. You think we don't know what a vaccine is. No, I know. So it's just a word. It's like if you said to me, dogs are savaging one in 800 people. You know, the average person is might not. But I trust my not think if that's a Chihuahua or like a German Shepherd, we just heard dogs. And then there's going to be a fear of dogs. And I think at the same with the vaccines, we don't know the difference between different vaccines. We just think they're all the same. So if you tell me that vaccines are causing X, Y and Z.

1:00:26I'm going to go, I don't care. If someone offers me a flu shot or a whatever thing or whatever, it's the trust that's been eroded in the system. It's my trust in the word vaccine. That's been eroded. Yeah, no. And it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that that has definitely showed there has been a dent in a change. I think an uptake of things like MMR. Because of it saved my life on Azakid. I got my family got malaria. We're in Africa. So they all got pretty bad malaria. And so we, yeah, my pretty pretty serious is what I think I almost died of malaria. I hear from my mother. Steve, the thing is with those sorts of vaccines, they went through many, many years of safety checks.

1:01:02Right. And this is an important thing. Is it people? I think we shouldn't underestimate people's intelligence and their ability to understand and forgive as long as we communicate it in the right way. I have these conversations all the time with my patients, you know, I give them numbers. I talk through it 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. One, the data's never been independently verified. Right. And I give them all this and I give them alternatives, etc. I do this all the time. And patients want that. They want more information in a way that they can understand.

1:01:32And of course, yes, they want to trust their doctor. But again, it's all it comes down to ethics, values, intent. And doctors not admitting their mistakes is a very, very bad place to be. The chair of the clinical cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, Professor Mark Dweck commented that on your opinion, saying the COVID vaccines, the COVID vaccine opinions you have on misguided and in fact dangerous, the vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with your views and they are not based on robust science. Now, if you're someone listening to this now, I've got your opinion and I've got this guy's opinion, the chair of the clinical cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.

1:02:09I've got the NHS saying that vaccines are safe and extensively reviewed in both adults and children and that the independent medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency is continually monitoring the safety of code vaccines and reports of side effects are very rare. And then I've got your view, how do I as someone that's hearing this in this year and this in this year, figure out what to believe? Because everyone's so compelling. Well, you just ultimately got to go with your own intuition, Steve, who need to wish is always going to side with fear. Yeah, maybe, maybe, maybe. And this stuff works.

1:02:43I'll come on to this. And this was a bit of a hatchet job by the Guardian. Interestingly, I've written 19 opeds for the Guardian Observer newspaper over the years. But you know how these are this journalism works. They'll they'll move on a couple of things just a couple of facts to throw back at you first. And then what you've raised is really interesting, historically, and something I've learned from this sort of backlash. Mark Dweck with the greatest respect to him. What wasn't disclosed in the article is that he has taken money from Pfizer. He's he's he's you know, been funded by Pfizer. And that's actually can look that up.

1:03:13Right. That's one thing. So that's a bias. The more important than that, the MHRA, which is described as independent, right? Yes, is not the British medical journal BMJ did an investigation, published in the summer of 2022. And I presented this data on the on the on the MHRA, the British Medical Association annual conference where the president, the BMA was there, the chair of the BMA was there, right? And they were gobsmacked. And they didn't they couldn't believe. And this is why this information. So important. These facts are important. The M even I was shocked when I read this are medical regulator in this country, MHRA gets 86 % of its funding from big farmer, which is a huge bias.

1:03:57So they're not independent. So those are those are two facts that should at least if I threw that back, you say hold on a minute. Then should I believe all this now. What was the purpose of that article, of course, it was to undermine my credibility. I'm exposing essentially something, you know, it for all intents purposes, pretty horrific, you know, reluctantly on the BBC with 25 million views or whatever else, right? But people that inspire me have been through far worse, right? And I'm an activist that want to expose injustices, right? The likes of Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, one of the lessons from them and even public health advocacy as soon as your work threatens an industry or an ideological cabal, you will be attacked sometimes unrenentingly and viciously.

1:04:37And that was really a hatchet job. What about the second part of the quote that he says that the vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with your views. Is that true? Well, he is giving his opinion, but actually from every car, okay, every cardiologist I spoke to has basically said, I see you're going to do doing great work, but they won't speak out. And this is part of the problem, right? Is the people are turning blind eye. I had one cardiologist who met me in the street, right? These are, I have, it's happens all the time. And he said, I read your paper. He said, I can tell you now, although they won't admit it publicly, all the cardiologists in our department.

1:05:15And they know you and they and they trust where you come from and your integrity. None of them are having any more COVID vaccines because of you. They're on to it. But Steve, this is a problem. Only a small minority of people are willing to speak out. I have a platform where I'm able to articulate it and do so. But that is my duty responsibility. This is just a reflection of what is ultimately a big farmer tyranny. You know, I know you've interviewed Jordan Peterson, who I admire greatly. And Jordan Peterson says when you have something to say, silence is a lie. And you know, tyranny emerges when people are afraid to say what they think.

1:05:54And when everybody essentially lies all the time by being silent, that's when the tyranny is complete. This is exactly where we are. But I do want to mention something, if you don't, if you don't mind, like I have to go through this, right, myself. And it's not easy, right? You get all this stuff and people talking credibility. And I remember when that, that that Guardian hit piece, which was like the, you know, the top story that day. I actually felt in many of my feelings, but I felt over the target here, right, because Gandhi said first, ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

1:06:28So the point is these things work, Steve, but you know, the truth is the truth. So what is the reality then if you're, if your life going through that because, you know, if you get attacked from all angles, you've not got immediate family there. You're you're reading stuff about yourself online all the time, your colleagues, etc, turning on you. What what's life like in if I'm a fly on the wall in those hard moments. Very deep pain on to have the knowledge and deep and understanding the in my view, we are dealing with one of the greatest likely corporate crimes, medical mistakes. Damage to people's health people are suffering people are dying people have got all sorts of problems because of this vaccine to have that deep knowledge and understanding and to not be able to see any great progress or enough progress for this to be resolved or to be improved that suffering around me gives me very deep pain more than anything else.

1:07:36Why? I think inherently I'm just very sensitive to that around with that's just the way I am. I think it's part of my innate nature. I've always been like that. You know, I had a I went from. You know, on the positive side, there are a lot of good friends around, you know, I haven't got immediate emotional support if that makes sense right where I am. But there are hundreds of thousands of people that support me. Certainly you follow me on Twitter and I people come and meet me in the street. I randomly bumped into this doctor in the street. I didn't know and older doctor quite well known. I won't name him.

1:08:08And he said he got really emotional in the street and he met me and he said, Dr. Maltre, thank you for everything you are doing with all of this. And I said, well, you know, I tried to be as humble with this. I'm just a medium for a message. I'm doing the right thing. He said, no, what are doing this extremely brave. And I'm with you 100 % and I know the vaccine killed one of my colleagues, etc., etc. And he's very honest said, I'm just too frightened to speak up. But that gives me fuel, right? And this this happens constantly so that I think there is definitely something that I get from that.

1:08:35So let me summarize your position then because I want to move on to I want to talk about silence and particularly high cholesterol because I got told by my doctor of high cholesterol. To summarize your position is you believe that vaccines themselves are not good for the world. Some of the greatest achievements in medicine are traditional vaccines. No doubt. You believe that the COVID vaccine and the start when admitted to certain age groups that were most vulnerable. There's an argument to say that it was it was a net positive. Yeah. I think there was an argument. And that you believe after sort of 2022 or 2021 when the variant changed to another, I think it was called Omni Chrome wasn't it?

1:09:18That at that point it certainly became a net negative. Is that your view? I would think probably earlier Stephen, the only reason I say then is anecdotal evidence, of course, is my dad had a cardiac arrest in the summer of 2021. He was 73, right? And he could be considered in the high risk group. So I think that if one is to make that case, I would say well, it depends what we're talking about as well in terms of COVID. Yes. Right. The net benefit in terms of COVID and COVID deaths. But the problem is what's the point in preventing someone getting COVID if six months later they're going to die of a cardiac arrest?

1:09:51You should have mean so we've got to look at it in that nuanced way. But yeah, I think there is a case to be made that if it was just given to certain high risk groups. Overall, there may have been a net benefit at the beginning. But where we are now and where it's continued and the mandates and all the stuff that extended it to many more people taking it. And that almost certainly was being fueled by Pfizer. And that's been shown that they were, you know, giving money to grass credible grassroots organizations in the US to promote the mandates. Right. This is after the data they received showing that it wasn't preventing infection and causing serious harm.

1:10:23Right. So this is, this is a problem with the system. I'm not blaming individuals here. This is something we'll talk about with statins as well is the, the, the system, the corporate capitalist system or the way capitalism is is actually being implemented is in its in many ways. And this has been diagnosed by forensic psychologist. The corporation as an institution is psychopathic when it comes to making money. That means they have callous and concern for the safety of others repeated lying conning others for profit. And this is, unfortunately, this is the root of the problem. And you also believe that there is a chance as well.

1:11:03And it's likely that the impacts of the lifestyle changes, the lockdowns, etc. The stress, the mental issues, the removing people from being able to see their loved ones, the sedentary lifestyles also contributed to the rise in heart related conditions and heart disease. 100 % it's played a role a smaller role, but it's played a role 100%. So I want to talk about heart disease because I don't even know what the heart disease is. And also I don't know what a heart attack is. I think we kind of all just assume we know. But what is a, what is a heart disease and what's heart attack? So heart disease, the conventional description or explanation of heart disease is disease affects the blood vessels of the heart essentially.

1:11:46That's the coronary artery disease, we call it. That's what most people when they talk about heart disease, that's what they mean. So that disease affects the blood vessels. Leads to build up of something called plaque, which is fearing if you like, okay, like a plaque. Yeah, so plaque is fearing of the arteries like a blockage. Okay, right, a blockage. That blockage is made up of cells of the immune system is made up of cholesterol. Right. And over time, that those blockages can either suddenly, like a pimple building up and the people getting bigger and bigger and bigger or even a small pimple suddenly bursting.

1:12:27And the contents of that plaque, right, the response to the blood having contact with the contents of that plaque that has built up over time, certainly cause a clot to form. And if the clot blocks the whole artery, then during the blood supplies completely cut off to the heart muscle. So the purpose of those blood vessels is to supply the heart muscle with blood so it can contract. So if you have a blockage that is there for several minutes, completely cutting off the blood supply, depending on where it is, it will cause that area of the heart muscle to lose its oxygen supply and nutrients and die and scar.

1:13:12And that leads to cell death, but of course, the heart muscle is quite big. So it could be a very small heart attack, could be a big heart attack. And then so heart attack specifically is death of any region of the heart muscle because of a blockage. Okay, I'm going to try death of the cells. I'm going to try and play this back to you. Yeah, correct me where I'm wrong. So you get this build up in your artery, but due to a bunch of factors, which will go back. The buildup explodes. Yes. Floes through the blood blocking the artery at some point. Yes. And then that blockage in the artery causes a cell in the heart, some areas in the heart to die because they're not getting oxygen.

1:13:50Exactly. So you're basically cuts off the blood supply. So it's cutting off the blood supply to whatever area because there are many branches, it depends where the blockages. Yeah, you cut off the blood supply. If it's cut off for long enough, those cells, every cell in our body needs oxygen to supply. Yeah. Right. Then that those that part of the heart muscle will die and become scar. So it dies and becomes scar in about seven, eight, seven, eight minutes, you said it can. Well, it can take, you know, 15 to 20 minutes. It depends on different factors, but within minutes, yes. And how does that feel from minute one to minute 20 time?

1:14:20So the classic symptoms of a heart attack, right, that is essential. What we call crushing heaviness or pain that can travel, radiate, we say in medical terms, to the neck, the jaw, it can go into the shoulders. It can go into the back. That's the classic symptoms or down the left arm. And you're conscious at this point. Yes, you're conscious. So a cardiac arrest just means the heart stopping. Ultimately, actually, we all have a cardiac arrest when we die. The last thing to go is our heart, right? But one of the most common causes of a cardiac arrest, certainly prematurely, not because of old age, for example, is, and this is random.

1:14:58So you can have a heart attack and you can be conscious and have pain and you get the hospital and you get diagnosed and you might have a, you know, a stent put in or you may have be put on blood thinners or whatever. In a certain proportion of people, and it doesn't depend on the size of the heart attack. So you can have a big area of the heart muscle that's damaged or a small area of the heart muscle of damage and it's random that it can cause an interruption in the normal electrical activity of the heart. The heart has electrical circuit that allows it to pump, right, the electrical circuit that allows it to pump in a certain, you know, in a regular rhythm.

1:15:31That circuit can get interrupted and then the heart muscle that's pumping like this, right, because it's pumping all the blood around your body to your brain, everything else, suddenly starts quivering, right? And that's known as ventricular fibrillation. What's when you see on all the, you know, on movies or on TV shows and stuff like that when they start shocking people. And that shows on the heart tracing as a kind of squiggle like this. Right. And that is what we call a shockable rhythm. If you deliver a shock, you know, often 200 joules, right, is delivered with a defibrillator, that will often restart the heart into a normal rhythm.

1:16:07And then the patient can be managed and treated, for example. So that's, but that quivering of the heart causes basically the heart to stop pumping blood around the body, the heart still moving, but it's not enough to pump blood around the body. And if that's going for a very long time, Steve, not a lot long, you know, for example, my dad's case, it may have been similar 20 or 30 minutes, then eventually, then, you know, that will even stop and patient dies. So I read some stats from a different source that said in the UK, one in eight men and one in 14 women die from Connery heart disease over the course of their lifetime.

1:16:38And that nearly 50 % of all US adults have some type of heart disease. And before the pandemic hit in 2019, 12 children died every single week in the UK from cardiac arrest. So I mean, this is, if anything's going to kill me, it's probably this. Yes. Most likely. So how do I stop it? Right. How do you stop? How do you even reverse it? How about some statins? Yeah. So, okay, let me just say this. My doctor, I got my lab results back at like three days ago. And he sort of told me a couple of things. One thing he told me is you got load vitamin D. I said, fine, yeah, get it. I mean, a room all day.

1:17:14The second thing he said is your cholesterol's high. He said, your bad cholesterol's high. And I don't really know what to make of that. But he said, your bad cholesterol's high. And I need to get that down. My father takes statins, which I know a lot of people take stands. I think it's like 200 million people are taking stands globally. So because I have you here, what do you think of what the advice I was given, which is just to get my bad cholesterol down? And how do I prevent myself ending up on either statins or having a heart attack? Okay. So on the statins issue and the cholesterol issue, traditionally Steve for decades and even now, the one of the primary focus within medicine, within cardiology to combat heart disease was to get your so called bad cholesterol LDL as low as possible.

1:18:09LDL means bad cholesterol. It's called low density lipoprotein, which is the bad stuff. It's supposed well, it's thought of convention is a bad cholesterol, right. And the reason for that is is the earliest studies that were done on the correlation that was found between high cholesterol and heart disease revealed at very high levels of total cholesterol. There was a very high prevalence of heart disease, but those levels of cholesterol, and we're talking about going back from, you know, studies that started in 1948, they went over three decades where they found cholesterol being associated with heart disease was only really there very, very high levels.

1:18:53That's the first thing. The second part of it and why they thought that getting it as low as possible was a solution is that people who had very low levels of cholesterol tended not get heart disease, right. Total cholesterol less than four LDL less than two million miles. Let's just say that for arguments say less than two million miles per liter. And by the way, just so just so people understand this, you would have got a red mark probably saying that your LDL cholesterol is high if it's more now the guideline suggestive it's more than three million miles per liter in your blood, the measurement that is considered high, but we'll we'll we'll tear that we'll tease that apart in a second.

1:19:29Now the thinking was that okay, if people with low cholesterol are not getting heart disease and people with very high levels of cholesterol and a gang heart disease, and that was total cholesterol above 10, for example, right, an LDL's above seven or eight massively high, right, then or more likely to get heart disease at significant numbers. The thinking was that the lower the better. So all these drug trials started, but there's one thing missing first and foremost is that most people's cholesterol, Steve LDL is genetic 80 % of your cholesterol because cholesterol is a very so why we got it's a very vital molecule in the body.

1:20:08It's without cholesterol, we would die is it required for maintaining the integrity of cells and cell membranes is required for hormone production right it has a role in the immune system. So it's really important vital molecule in the body, you can change the profile of the cholesterol, there are different components, there's something called triglycerides, which are a blood fat and HDL, so good cholesterol and LDL through dietary changes, but predominantly it's genetic initially right. So this is a thing. So does that so so one could then question maybe those people in those original studies had genetically high cholesterol, but that doesn't mean the cholesterol was the problem, there may be something else that hadn't been measured that we hadn't discovered yet.

1:20:51That was genetic that was causing the heart disease, but it happened to also be causing a raised LDL and the same time people with low cholesterol, they may have had something else right they may have had other factors that we now know actually are linked to heart disease and it's nothing to do with the cholesterol. So that's the first thing. The next question is, does lowering cholesterol so the question to you is does lowering your LDL make any difference. And for many, many years there was a mantra that was pushed by the medical establishment that there was a linear relationship the lower your LDL the less likely you have to get heart disease.

1:21:23In fact, there was a commentary written by one of America's most well known, an eminent cardiologist. He was the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, his name was William Roberts, and he wrote an article in 2011 to try and push the cholesterol message further so more people more people take cholesterol or into a statins and it was called it's a cholesterol stupid. And there's a line in that, which I mentioned in my book where he said, you can be an obese diabetic said entry smoker. But as long as your cholesterol is low enough in other words, that's the orchestral you will not develop heart disease think about it.

1:22:01Now, I'm just putting that to you, Steve. Now you hearing that what does that sound plausible to you. Right. It doesn't does it. It sounds a bit strange. Doesn't it, right? And I thought this is odd. I started looking into this in a lot of detail, probably 2010 partly because by the end of the by the late 90s, the people who had discovered the relationship with very high LDL cholesterol, which is actually by the way genetically linked to a condition called familial hypolipidemia affects one into 50 people, right. His people's cholesterol the sky high. Those people who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery said they predicted the almost the eradication of heart disease in the world by the early 2000s because we had discovered these drugs called statin drugs at lower cholesterol and are shown through clinical trials to prevent heart attacks and strokes and death, which will come on to right.

1:22:56So you've got the combination of that. But before statins came on to the market and have been prescribed now to 200 million people. One of the things that isn't talked about enough is that there were lots of trials done. So you've got this hypothesis now. We think we're right here. We've discovered that very high cholesterol in the population has got strong linked to heart disease and we've discovered that very low cholesterol doesn't give heart disease. But by the way, what's interesting is for 95 % of the population in the middle. There was no relationship with who is going to develop heart disease and who wasn't depending on based upon their cholesterol.

1:23:28But they thought let's develop these drugs to lower cholesterol and we've event heart attacks. So all the drug trial Steve before statins came on the market did not show any benefit. So you've got the trial where you've got someone with high cholesterol and another person with high cholesterol. One person gets a drug and the other person doesn't you follow them up. The person on the drug massively lowers the cholesterol, no prevention and heart attacks over several years like, hold on what's going on here. Maybe we did the trial wrong. Let's try again. Let's try again. Let's try again. Statins are produced.

1:23:54Okay. A different type of cholesterol or a drug and suddenly you start seeing benefits. Heart are great. We've solved it. Then we can make this case that the lower cholesterol are better. Two problems with that. The first one is that statins actually have other properties other than lowering LDL cholesterol. They are also anti -inflammatory and they have anti -clotting properties. What's accepted now is we know heart disease is a problem is a is a clotting problem linked to chronic inflammation. So it means the benefit of statins, which I will give you in a second, right, is probably more likely because of those properties because other studies when we did other drugs on cholesterol, there was no benefit.

1:24:36Does that make sense? Am I making sense? Yeah, it's targeting the inflammation and the clotting. Exactly. So the question then is what are the benefit of statins? So the first thing to say, and this is where the controversies happened, is that what I'm about to tell you is again based upon drug industry sponsor trials where the raw data on those trials with the benefits I'm going to tell you has never been independently verified. So what I say to patients and I'll say this to you is what I'm about to tell you is likely my opinion and exaggerated benefit, but it's still a benefit I'm going to tell you if we trust the drug companies completely, this is a benefit you're going to get Steve.

1:25:14If you've not had a heart attack, forget about high cholesterol for a second, right. This applies to everybody. If you've not had a heart attack or you have not been diagnosed with severe blockages, right, you've not got that right and you would know if you did because you'd get symptoms of chest pain doing exercise. Then the benefit of a statin for you over a five year period at best is one in a hundred in preventing you having a non fatal heart attack, a non disabling stroke, but will not prolong your life by one day. So that's the first thing. Now, when you do studies where you give patient that information in that transparent way, more than two thirds of them, most of them, and I my experiences was a doc.

1:25:56Those odds and some sign great. I want to prevent heart disease, but I don't fancy taking this before by the way we've talked about side effects where the controversies happened, which I've been heavily involved in, is in my experience with with patients and also other data that's out there. A large proportion of patients will suffer quality. Let me be clear here. It's not about serious, right. Quality of life limiting side effects, right. That means most commonly fatigue, muscle pain can be erect. How this function sleep distance, but stuff that makes you don't feel you don't feel good. This is not a good way to live.

1:26:29The good news is it's reversible usually within a couple weeks of stopping the statin or reducing the dose. Okay. So that controversy led to me publishing our tool in British medical journal in 2013, where me and another and a Harvard doctor in a separate article said, we believe that the side effect rate is probably in the order of one in five people, 20%, which is quite high of those sorts of side effects. Right. And that caused a bit of backlash because the group of researchers in Oxford who take money from big farmer who write the guidelines around the world said this is going to scare people stop them taking a statin to people or die.

1:27:04But that for the low risk people, no one's going to die because there's no benefit in mortality. Now for high risk people, those are people who've had a heart attack. The benefit of a statin is better, Steve. Okay. So let's say, for example, some patient comes in their heart attack and I'm telling you the benefit of the statin. If they take it religiously every day for five, five years, because that's how long the trials last where you can give them that information. The benefit of preventing a further heart attack is one in 39, about 2 .5%, one in 39. And the benefit in prolonging their life is one in 83.

1:27:40Right. There's another way of looking at the stats though, based upon again, industry sponsored trials, all of the trials that have been done on statins. And people might ask a question, they don't often ask this, but they may ask a question, how much longer am I going to live? Right. Like, okay, let's just throw this question to you. Say you've had a heart attack, you survived a heart attack. Dr. Says, take this drug and over a five year period, how much extra life extension, would you hope or hope it would add over that five years? You can, you know, you can do it over over 20 years, but just say five years to start with how much longer would you hope to live from taking that statin?

1:28:18Okay. So over five years than I'd say, maybe a year, 25 % more. Okay. Fine. That sounds pretty good. Yeah. Okay. The actual figure, not disputed from industry sponsored trials, right? 4 .2 days, just over four days. Is that because they haven't been over a long enough period of time? No, I mean, I mean, I know if you then extrapolate it out, if you presume the benefits are going to keep going on, you could then argue, well, over 10 years, it'll be eight days and over 20 years, it'll be 16 days or whatever. Right. So, so that's the information. So this, the reason I'm, I'm telling you this, Steve, is that this information is important.

1:28:57I'm not just a doctor, I'm a potential patient. I asked myself, what would I want to know? Right. I'm here to try and improve my quality of life and my health. What is important to me? What is important to patients? This information is important, especially Steve, because it's not that I'm taking, don't take statins, but a lot of people will say, okay, I'll take the drug, right? And if they don't get side effects, why not? You know, it might be a bit of a lottery, but why not take the drug? And the people say that to me, and that's fine. And if they get side effects. But the thing that's missing, Steve, is, and this is where we come on to the question you asked me about how to prevent heart disease, is there an alternative that doesn't give me side effects, improves my quality of life, and likely is going to help prevent stop me getting heart disease?

1:29:35So what is that? Lifestyle changes. Absolutely. So 80 % of heart disease is linked to environment and lifestyle. Okay. So what is the core, most important biological phenomenon in the body that leads to heart disease, which is not disputed, but doesn't get, it doesn't get much of a, there's no market for the message because there is no, you can't commodify this. This is an interesting thing, right? So, but it's, it's really important information. It's called insum resistance. Insum is a very important home in the body, released by the pancreas helps maintain blood glucose with certain ranges. So our cells can function optimally.

1:30:14All right. Over time, if your insulin is chronically raised too high, or if your cells become resistant to them, for whatever reason, that is the most important driver of the development of these so called plucks, he's firming these blockages in the arteries. So what causes insur resistance and how can you combat it? Or how can you prevent and potentially stabilize and even reverse, we got into reversal as well, because that's a fascinating area. Most important components, diet, okay. I would say in big figure terms, now probably 50 % of heart disease around the world can be linked to poor diet.

1:31:00Okay, so let's start with diet then. I actually got a bag of sugar that I brought with me because when I think about insulin glucose, bad diet, the first thing my, my brain thinks about is sugar. So I've got this bag of sugar here that I brought with me. And I've got two, look at us, we've, we've written sugar on it and cover up the brand because they didn't pay us. But if there is a sugar brand that would like to do a brand deal, please get in touch with big fans if we need to be. Q1 is often when businesses start implementing new systems and processes in hopes of creating efficiencies for the year ahead.

1:31:32And over the course of my career, I've learnt just how crucial having the right systems in places, one which has helped me across many of my investments is net suite. There also a sponsor of this podcast net suite is the number one cloud financial system through their streamlined platform. You'll find all of your accounting financial management inventory and HR in one place. Their technology has been a real game changer, especially for my team at flight studio. As over the last year, we've moved out of startup mode and into scale at mode. We no longer have to juggle multiple systems and having everything together has reduced the number of manual tasks and arrows over 41 ,000 businesses have chosen to future proof their business with net suite.

1:32:12So if you'd like to learn how it can help your business head to net suite dot com slash Bartlett and free download the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning that's net suite dot com slash Bartlett. What I actually would like you to show me is how much sugar do I need to function and to be healthy? Okay. The amount of sugar that you need to function and be healthy is zero. There is no nutritional requirement whatsoever of of of this what we call added sugar or table sugar, none at all. So I don't need any you don't need any. And the reason for that is very briefly. Our bodies need glucose to survive, but you don't need any dietary source of glucose to survive, right, because your people go on what we call ketogenic diets and they literally eliminate all starch as well, which also contains glucose from their diet.

1:33:03Your body will make it itself from fat and protein. So in terms of diets, there is no value from sugar whatsoever. It can give you energy, of course. Yes, but you can get energy from other things, but there's no nutritional value whatsoever. Zero. So from a health perspective, there is zero requirement for dietary sugar. So when we say that Americans are consuming a lot of sugar every day, are we talking about added sugar? Yeah, we're talking about so the way that so the World Health Organization now. After I was involved in this campaign, you know, and there was a lot of attention on it, they revise their guidelines.

1:33:38So they recommend a maximum limit for the average adult of actually six teaspoons of either so maximum limit, okay, which you don't need it, but maximum limit because after that, that's when the health consequences start to accumulate one, two, three, four, five, six. Okay, so that's the maximum daily limit, maximum daily limit, okay, but just to give you an example, that's not that's so one sugary drink, we don't name any brands, right, you would have to say that one of those would often a three 30 mil, let's say the most famous sugary drink in the world, I've known you're talking about would have nine teaspoons on a nine teaspoons in one of those, right, and that's just in the three 30 mil imagine going to the cinema and having half a liter whatever else, right, Jesus, yeah, so one kind of has nine teaspoons of sugar in which is yeah, which is so four, yeah, absolutely, so so four grams is one teaspoon, okay, which is one of the daily recommend is now one chocolate bar, yeah, that is standard size chocolate bar, what we grew up with about the same leaf chocolate out of it, right, well, listen, you have dark chocolate, I love chocolate, right, what have you know, for children, the US Department of Agriculture for the average four to eight year old child, think about kids as well, they're the most vulnerable to a lot of this problem with these problems of sugar, they recommend a maximum limit of three teaspoons, yeah, now the average person in this country in America, is consuming at least 20 teaspoons now when we talk about sugar, we're talking about what are the word they use as free sugars, that means this sort of sugar added, right, to foods, but it also includes fruit juice, honey, and syrups, same effect on your body, the fruit whole fruit is fine, but if you think about it, a glass of orange juice, for example, would usually have the juice of six oranges, you couldn't eat six oranges that easily, you'd have one orange, for example, and this fiber, and the fiber does it has a counteracting effect on terms of the way that the glucose and fructose is affected, absorbed in your body, a lot of it's to do with the rapid increase in the bloodstream of glucose, and that causes huge spikes in insulin, and the problem with that over time, of course, is you could chronically raise insulin in heart disease, but also interesting, the more rapidly you have a food that causes a glucose spike, the more quickly you're going to get a crash, because insulin goes up quite quickly, and it causes it to come down, and it drives hunger, so that's another problem, so the food industry, I think, knew for a long time, that's why in America, and it may be similar here, 70 % of foods purchased in supermarket in America will have added sugar, because they knew that it increases the palatability and the consumption, of course they're there to sell food, not look up to your health.

1:36:37So you said 20 teaspoons is the average for an American, at least 20 is probably much higher. I'm going to have to ask you to show us that, so I can see what that looks like in a glass. It's disgusting, that's disgusting. When you see it like that, and you don't realize that you're having that much sugar in a day, but technically that's what two cans of fizzy drink. But the thing is a lot of the sugar that's being consumed are in foods that people wouldn't think have sugar in them, not the usual junk food, your cakes and biscuits and whatever else. They're in things even marketed as being healthy, low fat foods, etc.

1:37:16Low fat yoghurt. So could you just summarize what we have here, then? Yeah. These two glasses. Yeah. So this is the maximum daily recommended limit by the World Health Organization of sugar consumption, after which you then start doing, you see increases risks of disease. And this is what, at least I think what most people are consuming at the moment. Are you hopeful that there's something we can do about this at a society level? Well, I think one important step was the fact that we, you know, this levy on sugary drinks definitely would have some impact partly based upon what we learned from Big Tobacco.

1:37:55You know, Steve, you know, 50 % of, it's interesting, we've crazy been thinking about it now. In 1970, 50 % of adults in the UK were smokers. Right. We've got that down to about 17 % now, but massive reduction. Right. And it happened, education was important, but the real, the real intervention that had more impact than anything else was actually taxation of cigarettes. And it had too full effect. Of course, you make it a little bit more expensive, you know, this with your business background, right. It's going to reduce the consumption. But it was a way of also increasing awareness that this is harmful.

1:38:33So I think the sugar stuff is ongoing. I think a lot of people have awareness on it. I think now, which is linked to sugar, and I've written about this, we need to treat ultra -process food, which a lot of the ultra -process food has added sugar as the new tobacco. Right. This is more than 50 % of the calories in the UK and more than 60 % of the calories in the US is of people's daily consumption is coming from ultra -process foods essentially described as if it comes out of a packet, industrially produced. And you can read more than five ingredients, usually with additives and preservatives, it's ultra -process, investor -voided, and all of the research has been done only points in one direction.

1:39:15And I think there are at least 32 different conditions or diseases now that are associated with the consumption of ultra -process food. That is the major issue. So because this is a predominant in environmental problem, right. Our food environment is saturated with this stuff, even hospital Steve. I mean, the first campaign I got involved with is trying to get this stuff out of hospital I was like, hold on, we're treating patients with obesity related conditions, yet we're serving them junk food in hospitals. The staff, 50 % of NHS staff are overweight or obese. What's the probability that if I'm, because I want to talk about ultra -process foods as well as the cheese, what's the probability that if I'm having that much sugar a day, the big glass, that I'm going to end up in your practice with some kind of heart disease?

1:39:54I wouldn't be able to give you a figure, but you're definitely significantly increasing your risk. Well, if that's the average American, then what's the average American's chance of ending up in? I guess causation needs to be established. Yeah, of course. It depends on what else they're having as well. But it's definitely putting them at significant increase risk of type 2 diabetes. I think the figure now in America, if I'm not wrong, is that a third to a half of adult Americans now are pre -diabetic. The broad, so to answer your question in a better way, because we're already there, unfortunately.

1:40:29The way to understand insulin resistance on a personal level in terms of measurements, body measurements, is some called metabolic health. And there are five components, which are very easy to measure, a metabolic health. It's your waist circumference. It's your blood triglycerides, which is a form of the cholesterol being above 1 .7 millimals. It's your HDL cholesterol, the good cholesterol being less than 1 millimal. It's being pre -diabetic, having a HBA1C of more than 5 .7%. Or being pre -hypertensive. So your blood pressure is above 120 over 80 average. If you have three of those that are abnormal, you have some called metabolic syndrome, which is the highest risk of heart disease, and at least 50 % if not more patients admitted with heart attacks will have metabolic syndrome.

1:41:22But all those five parameters being in the normal range, in America, only one in eight adults have all of those in the normal range, and only one in four people age between 20 and 40. Think about that for a second. So seven out of eight adults will have abnormal metabolic health. If we, within a year, if we just shifted a little bit people's eating habits, and let's say we eliminated ultra -process food, we got people to eat more nuts and seeds, oily fish, you know, whole -ferent vegetables, it's been estimated that you would half the death rates from heart disease within globally, within one year, from 20 million to 10 million.

1:42:05You'd be out of business. There's a heart doctor.

1:42:11There's still a lot of people to treat. We've got to help the other 10 million as well, right? But I think the other thing as well is what it does Steve, though, is it shifts the age. So instead of someone having, saying a dying premature year, having a heart attack at the age of, say, 65, you know, they'll lift to 85. So all we'll be doing as doctors will be managing all the people. But that's fine. We improve longevity, we improve quality of life as well. You refer to stress as a silent killer. It's something we're not addressing, I think, as a society. So to put it in perspective, when you look at risk factor for heart disease, risk factors for heart disease, the major ones are smoking type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure.

1:42:50The risk of heart disease linked to stress, chronic stress, of more than a moderate degree, is actually the same as being a smoker or having high blood pressure or having type 2 diabetes. And most people, I think, are not managing it. And certainly of all the patients I see, all the heart patients I see, invariably, all of them have had over the preceding years before the heart attack. It's Jeff Lowe, stress levels are quite high. What's the mechanism? So from an evolutionary perspective, if we were acute stress, it can be a lifesaver. If we were running away from a saber -toothed tiger, then what happens is the body produces clotting factors in inflammatory markers, factors in the blood.

1:43:38If we were attacked, they help reduce the risk of us bleeding to death. So imagine, now imagine that happening, chronic stress, you've got a low grade, what we call chronic inflammation, and clotting factors increase. And that has been shown, actually, in proven in a study that was published in the Lancet a few years ago, where they did an MRI of the brain, of young healthy people, adults. And they followed them up, but they looked at the their subjective stress course. They did like questionnaires to measure their stress levels subjectively. They correlated that with looking at the amygdala in the brain, which is the emotional center.

1:44:15And then they looked at clotting factors and they even looked at heart attacks further down the line. And there was a perfect correlation with the subjective stress score, the amygdala lighting up, the clotting factors in the blood, the inflammatory markers in the blood and heart attacks. So we've got the puzzle mechanism. So if that's the case, Steve, there must be a way of curbing it. And well, how does one do that? Well, the two most important cause of stress in society are work and relationship stress. So those are things people can potentially work on, right? Potentially, but it's just to be aware of it.

1:44:44But one of the interventions that I use with my patients is actually breathwork and meditation. And one of most extraordinary bits of research I came across. And it's in our documentary as well, because we're going to bit more detail on it. I had to go and see it for myself to believe it, actually properly believe it. A cardiologist in India for more than 20 years has been through a lifestyle approach has been reversing heart disease. So he did a study called the Mount Abhu that is a place in northern India where he's got a huge community in a hospital. People come to see him there. And he puts him to this lifestyle plan, which in this study was, you know, they devout hindu.

1:45:25So it was a high fiber vegetarian diet. It was two 30 minute brisk walks a day. Okay. Okay. And some are called Raj yoga meditation for 40 minutes, which is a form of breathwork, but it's also a bit of a spiritual transformation as well. It's about understanding where your anger comes from and all that kind of stuff. So it goes quite deep. And anyway, he followed these people up who were diagnosed with at least 50 to 70 % blockages in their archery. So he had heart disease. For some reason, they didn't want to have a, a bypass operation or a stent or they couldn't afford it. And they wanted this lifestyle plan.

1:45:59So he put them on lifestyle plan. He repeated their angiograms after two years. Right. He looked at the archery again. And on the people that had adhered to the plan, there was an average reduction of the blockage of 20%. 70 % became 50, 50 became 30. This is unheard of. If you ask any cardiologist, and heart disease reversing, I've never even seen it. It's not possible. Right. But he showed this to be the case. He then looked at his data a bit in a bit more detail and said, was it the diet? Was it the exercise or was it the stress reduction? The only, of course, they're all important, but the only independent factor for the reversal of the blockages was 40 minutes of radiogomeditation per day.

1:46:37Now, I asked him, you know, he published his data and what we call an observational study. It wasn't what we call a randomized trial where it was just more rigorous, we done. And he said, why have you not done the randomized trial? He said, I have. Years ago. And he showed me the data and I said, wow, why don't you publish this anywhere? Couldn't get it published. He invited, I could be wrong about, it was a senior cardiology society. I can't remember the American art association, but it was a senior cardiology society in America. He invited them to India so he could present his data. He presented his data to them.

1:47:15And they basically thought it was fascinating. But in between the lines, they said to him, you know, we can't publish this because it will affect our stent business. And what's the stent business? Stent is basically the heart stents. Like, as in it would, you know, I remember Steve when I first wrote an article, the first sort of mainstream media article I wrote in 2011, was me. It was in the observance paper. I'd met Jamie Oliver having written to him saying, can you sort of hustle food out? And then I ended up writing an article called I mend hearts. Then I see our hospitalist serve junk food to my patients.

1:47:50Basically saying, listen, we're going to tackle this BC epidemic, heart disease. We need sort of die out. And I remember one of the cardiologists who I knew, a senior cardiologist, I was a civil junior doctor at this point, kind of tongue in cheek, but many truths are spoken and just said, I seem this is going to affect our business, our stent business, as in operating on people. As if it was a bad thing that I was saying that we should basically prevent heart disease. Right. There's a cultural problem here, Steve. Honestly, I'm not this is a, this is a, a dirty secret, if you like, within medicine, unfortunately.

1:48:21A monster establishment figures is that they have become so wedded and so close to these tyrannical corporations or their own self interest that, you know, we're missing a big trick here in terms of what we can really do for patients. In part, your other book here that I have, I still can't pronounce this word, Puyope, Puyope, Puyope. Your Puyope die, I guess serves to address many of these issues and to make sure that our heart, heart stay healthy. What I wanted you to do for me is if I'm endeavoring to have a good heart health interlite die, which I guess is kind of impossible, but maybe I'll get hit by a truck or something.

1:49:00If I'm endeavoring to have good heart health, what should my daily route in an optimal situation? What should my daily routine look like? If I follow the diet that you came up with, but also if I'm thinking through all of the potential things that can cause bad health. Sleep. I wait for you to have, so I sleep for seven hours. Yeah, so at least seven hours sleep. Great. Okay, I'll go up. No, no, no, no, no. Okay. Eating real food. Okay, so breakfast is, how many, how many meals a day should I have? Well, two to three, whatever suits you when you feel hungry, eat till you're full. Not seven, eight, nine, not...

1:49:32No, no, no. And also, I suppose if you're doing activity, then you may. But the most important thing is to avoid the ultra -process food and not to have too much starch. Without fasting. Controversial area, mixed data. I think that in terms of, you know, I have patients who feel benefit from fasting. And other people feel more stressed. It depends where you are in your life. If for example, you're very active and your sleep isn't good, actually fasting can make your stress levels worse, which is not good. It causes cortisol to increase. And there is some data showing that happens. So it depends where you are, but I'm not a verse to fasting.

1:50:08It depends, you know, see how people feel. Okay, so I've worked on it. I've had seven hours of sleep. Yeah, I've eaten breakfast, which was whole foods. So yeah. Yeah. And okay, so I would say, you know, whole fruit and vegetables, ideally. A mixture of low sugar fruits, if you can ideally, you know, berries, mixed berries, for example. If you can get at least five to seven portions in, that's great. The foods that are thought, so the anti -inflammatory foods that have got a reasonable body of evidence behind them. I think it's like extra virgin olive oil is your base fat. Okay, nuts and seeds, tree nuts, almonds, walnuts, hazelnuts, for example.

1:50:46Oily fish at least a couple of times a week. Right. And then I would say minimizing, you know, the starch and the sugar. Okay. And the rest of it doesn't matter. You can have, you know, I have a heart patient asking me whether I can eat a steak. It's absolutely. It's not going to cause, you know, it's very nutritious. So if you want to have a steak two or three times a week, no issue. Sat -traded fat in the diet isn't a problem. I busted that myth. So butter, cheese, for example, red meat is not going to have any adverse effect on your heart. Okay, so I've eaten my breakfast. You don't enjoy your food as well, right?

1:51:16Yeah. So that's my sleep taking care of my meals, that day taking care of what else do I need to be thinking about, up to my heart health? Well, I suppose you've got to think about what love is very subjective. You know if you're stressed. And if you're stressed, then you need to think about what can you do about it? And there are different things. Some people find exercise is good. Some people do yoga. They do palates. Some people do breath work. So try and find out I have an app called calm, which I listen to. I do at least 20 to 30, sometimes 40 minutes of breath work every morning when I wake up.

1:51:48First thing I do actually, I'm going to do breath work and I'm going to go for a long workout. Is there such such a thing as too much exercise? Yeah, unfortunately yes. About 11 % of the athletes by the time they reach 50 will have scans that show very severe blockages or a heart disease. Right. And I think Steve to be honest, it might be genetic predishibition, but I think a lot of those people, there's some of these people coming to me who don't know why they've got diagnosed with heart disease. And I remember one lady I saw a few months ago. And she was running something like something crazy like five to 10 miles a day, but only four hours sleep.

1:52:28And she was young. And otherwise it didn't have a diabetes or anything else, but had heart disease and developed heart disease. And I said, this is probably because of this. So I think that when you look at heart disease and optimal levels of exercise, it is actually the one thing I think the guidelines are right about is probably that 150 minutes of moderate activity a week. So, you know, I again, I follow my own advice and I will, you know, I used to run, but, you know, running can be quite damaging to the knees, especially to get older. So I cycle and do exercise back and whatever else. And I will get my heart rate to about 115 beats a minute for 30 minutes, you know, five times a week.

1:53:02One study found that marathon runners experience a frequency of heart attacks and stroke similar to people who already have heart disease, suggesting too much exercise is harmful, which is in your book, statin free. And another star here is athletes who do more than one hour of intense exercise per day, four times, have four times the frequency of breathing infections per year compared to those who do moderate activity. Well, that's the other thing about overexercising while it depresses your immune system. That's well known. And in fact, if you look at, and a lot of people do it for different reasons, but you've looked at the, the communities around the world known as the blue zones, Steve, you know, where people have high longevity, these people went pounding it in the gym.

1:53:39They're just outside, you know, they were gardening, they were moving. You don't need to be doing all of that kind of stuff. People do it for different reasons. I mean, I, I do it sometimes. Oh, also for mental health, it's good. You, um, didn't you publish an article you co -authored an article for the British Journal of Sports and Medicine called, it's time to bust the myth of physical activity. Yeah, physical inactivity and obesity. You can't outrun a bad diet. That was the title of the article. And the point was, and we make it very clear at the beginning, that exercise has many benefits for health, but weight loss is not one of them because most of what determines your weight gain, almost all of it is to do with, with what you eat.

1:54:14And that discussion with that thinking, whether it was about burning calories, actually came from the food industry. They, they, they, they manufactured that, um, Coca -Cola, the McDonald's, they would push this, they even, the Olympic Games 2012, they were the main sponsors, right? Because for them, they want to distract from their unhealthy products and say, well, the obesity epidemic has been driven by people, not, you know, not exercising. So on that day, on this perfect day that I'm creating in my mind, I'm eating well. I've moved, but not too much. I'm doing breath work in the morning. I've slept seven hours a day.

1:54:44And the last thing that from looking at your 21 -day immun, immunosy plan is socializing. Yeah. So, so important. I think one of the most important aspects for mental health, physical health, is the quality of our relationships, friends, family. Um, people may laugh at this, but I actually, I actually prescribe hugging. So a lot of my patients, especially couples, you know, um, there is definitely some benefits from that, you know, uh, and, uh, in terms of reducing cortisol levels, et cetera. I think that's an issue in society in general. You know, we've become, we have been conditioned in a way to think that we can just be dependent on ourselves as individuals and we don't need other people, but actually we do.

1:55:26That's how we evolved. Partly because it helps us, it helps us feel safe. Hugging. I think it just, it just, yeah, there is, it's, it's, it activates parts of the brain, the protections, soothing mechanisms of the brain. And I think that is just an extra element of it. Absolutely. And it reduces cortisol and all those things. So it's going to stay off hard attacks if we hug, we have less chance of having a heart attack. It's not just about that. I think it's also good for the immune system. So they're, the people that did the original cold studies on, on cold viruses. This has done, I think in at least 2000s, fascinating study.

1:56:00They inoculated people with a cold virus. So they put the traditional cold virus, whatever, into people's, you know, nasal passages. And they looked at who developed symptoms of a cold and who didn't. And they looked and before they did that, they did these questionnaires based on several different aspects of people's social life. Are they involved in community activities? How often do they meet their friends? What's it like with their partner, et cetera, et cetera? And the people who had the highest scores, only one in three of those people developed a cold. And the people on the other side that were more, maybe more lonely and were interacting with other people who didn't have good quality relationships, two out of three of those people developed colds.

1:56:40So it's not just about heart disease. It's about the immune system as well. Overall health makes you think, doesn't it? Floneliness really is killing us. Yep. We need to try and do more to end the epidemic that is loneliness because the stats seem to suggest it's going one way and it's not a good way. And part of that issue as well, Steve, which is something we need to think about with what's going on society, is I do, we've got a worsening mental health crisis. We've got less trust in government. One of the ways societies progress is people being able to trust each other by people not being afraid to speak the truth.

1:57:14And more than ever, and certainly I've seen it in medicine, we have got to a situation and the code vaccine is a microcosm of something much bigger, where people are afraid to speak the truth. And that gives us an element of uncertainty, distrust, and it makes us more stressed. So what this means, what it comes back to is ultimately part of the solution to the mental, physical, social, wellbeing crisis, heart disease is thinking about acting from a place of virtue and ethics. Right. Thinking about your intentions being honest, not manipulating other people for money. This is unfortunately whether the capitalist system or the current economic system has taken us.

1:57:53And the corporatization of human beings as a result, and that is very detrimental to our physical mental health. What was your father's name? KELASH. KELASH. Son, never change your loyalty.

1:58:12Yeah, loyalty was very important to him. I was brought with those core values about honesty, integrity, being loyal to people, how to be a good human being, how to be the best version of yourself. Steve, that's what it's about, for your benefit and for the benefit of others. He said that you were new younger and you were considering switching football team. He told you to never change your loyalty. And you described, I've got the eulogy you wrote for your father when he passed away here. It's interesting some of the words and phrases that you used in the eulogy to him because they seem to be quite pertinent to our conversation today.

1:58:49The ultimate purpose of knowledge is to reduce human suffering. And that true wisdom to achieve that end only comes from dialogue. Yeah, that was a, that was a socratic, Socrates quote, truism comes only from dialogue. Understanding others starts from understanding oneself. And to get to a greater truth, one has to be able to question one's own beliefs. And to get there to achieve that, you have to engage with other people and have discussions, but from a place of compassion where you are open to listening to other people. Because we can only get to a greater truth if you listen to all different sides on a particular issue.

1:59:31And that comes from having that conversation. So I think that's a huge component of it all, which I think we're losing Steven society. There's so much polarization. Yeah, and that's completely agree. It's difficult, obviously, because conversation can be fatal. It can be especially medical conversation, conversation about things like vaccines or health information. So it's very delicate information, but the, what can also be fatal is the lack of conversation. I'm not seeing ideas collide. And it's interesting is someone who speaks to a lot of health professionals on this podcast. I'm not an expert in health and people often criticize me for that and say, you know, they said this thing wrong or this thing wrong.

2:00:12But I think the place that I've got to now is to present every opinion that I can. And hopefully to will people to be able to make up their own minds. And I hope I tried to present some of the other side of the release of the rebuttals so people can be curious. And they don't we're not pushing in any particular direction. I have no bloody dog in the fight. I know. And I'm not I want to have that conversation. If I think part of the problem with all of this is that conversation isn't even happening. We want to have that conversation. We want rebuttals. We want a count of you. Yeah. But the ignoring of even the conversation that for me is is is unforgivable.

2:00:48It's a shame. I think podcasts are doing a good job of kind of well, I think a lot of them are doing a good job of just having that conversation. Yeah. And because it's long form and there's I mean, there's a comment section. So people are going to discuss below in this. You know, there's lots of podcasts. There's lots of information being thrown out into the world. And everything we talked about today will be linked below as much of the links we can. So if anybody is curious about anything we've discussed or any stats, you'll send me your stuff. Absolutely. And I'll link it below and I'll link the NHS and the British Heart Foundation and anyone else blows to people can have a think about that.

2:01:21But I am a big fan of conversation and I'm a big fan of having both sides of an argument and trying to make my own mind up on things and find the nuance. I find the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Yeah. So I think it's important because you know, one of the things I think we have to we have to reflect on is some of those amazing people you talked about, like Martin Luther King. And I don't know whether it's the suffragettes or Gandhi, whoever it might be. Their ideas in their time, what received equally, horrifically. And now those are things that we all consider to be true and very important as it relates to maybe science or just social issues on equality.

2:01:55So with that in mind, we have to also be humble to the fact that an idea that might be important might at first offend us. It might trigger us. It might be counter to the public narrative or to the current available science. But I don't think it should be censored. No, and I would say that people listening to this just think about one thing. One of the reasons that we seek the truth and greater truths is that a life lived in darkness has no meaning. Amen. We have a closing tradition on this podcast with Alaska sleeves a question for the next guest not knowing who they're going to be leaving it for.

2:02:35And the question left for you is of all the most amazing superstar people you have met in your life. What was the quality that made them superstars and can it be taught? A love for humanity. That was a quality to make them superstars and whatever they were doing. It was to give back to society in some way, whether it was entertainment, whether it was music, whether it was sport, but based upon a love for humanity.

2:03:14It stands up to be true. I just went through a list of superstars that I know of in my brain. And I think that's certainly the case. And it's funny because the people that I think of as real superstars aren't necessarily famous. They're not rich. They're not anything like that. They're just like the best people. The ones that I really aspire to be more like. But the one that made them stand out for me, the one quality that made them extra special in those particular people was despite them being so excellent. Is they had a huge, a wonderful humility about them.

2:03:48And they can find you everywhere, especially on tour. Good, big Twitter following. And your books as well. I will link your books below in the description for anybody that wants to read them. I've these two books in particular. The one that I can't pronounce the. P .O .P. P .O .P. Diet. A 21 day lifestyle plan. Lose weight, feel great and drastically reduce your risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. And a statin free life, a revolutionary life plan for tackling heart disease without the use of statins. I do that. I'd certainly really, really recommend. Thank you. Doctor, Sam. Thank you for the work you do, the way that you do your work.

2:04:21And thank you for having the courage to be a loud, counteracting voice in society where we do need counteracting voices. I don't think anybody can ever argue with that. And the way in which you do it and your intentions of doing it, I think are wonderful. And I think there are a real credit to the two wonderful people that raised you. So thank you for your time today. Thank you for doing the work that you do. I'm going to continue following it. I follow you on Twitter and I've been following you for many, many years, I think, I believe. And I very much enjoy consuming your information because I know that you don't.

2:04:52You have this a certain fearlessness with you that is going to deliver what is true regardless of consequence. And that is a useful source of information to have in my world where I'm trying to advance my thinking and I care more about progress and truth that I do something feeling comfortable. So I highly recommend everyone go check your Twitter as well.

2:05:36Q1 is often when businesses start implementing new systems and processes in hopes of creating efficiencies for the year ahead. And over the course of my career, I've learnt just how crucial having the right systems in places, one which has helped me across many of my investments is net suite. They're also a sponsor of this podcast. Net suite is the number one cloud financial system through their streamlined platform. You'll find all of your accounting financial management inventory and HR in one place. Their technology has been a real game changer, especially for my team at flight studio. As over the last year, we've moved out of startup mode and into scale at mode.

2:06:12We no longer have to juggle multiple systems and having everything together has reduced the number of manual tasks and errors. Over 41 ,000 businesses have chosen to future proof their business with net suite. So if you'd like to learn how it can help your business, head to netsweep .com slash Bartlett and free download the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning. That's netsweep .com slash Bartlett.