Doctors Who Openly Opposed COVID 19 Jabs Deserve Public Apology

Written by Dr Andrew Bamji on June 11, 2025. Posted in Current News

“I am worried about the insidious growth of evidence that the risks of vaccination outweigh the benefits.” So I wrote on January 7th 2023 as I considered the intervention of prominent heart doctor Aseem Malhotra into the fraught Covid vaccine debate. I continued:

Now that the vaccines have been around for a while the less common sequelae which would not have been noted in small trials are mounting in number, with particular concern over whether the rising rate of cardiac deaths is attributable at least in part to the vaccine. It is a theoretical possibility. Also, getting infected seems to produce better and longer-lasting antibody generation. Many people think Dr Aseem Malhotra is a maverick, but watch his interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News.

Then ask yourself – given the outrageous aspersions cast on drug companies and the regulatory bodies – why he has not been sued for defamation? Could it just be that those theoretical possibilities are realities? If so, it is probably worth reminding drug companies and politicians that the truth will emerge eventually.

It later emerged that three originally anonymous doctors had referred Dr Aseem Malhotra to the General Medical Council. The doctors were later named as Matthew Kneale, Trisha Greenhalgh and Rachel Clarke. Dr Kneale was quoted in the British Medical Journal after it emerged that the GMC had declined to take action:

Kneale said in his witness statement, “I felt compelled to bring these proceedings because I strongly believe that medical professionals should not be using their professional status to promote harmful misinformation. The consequences of a decision to not investigate such cases creates a ‘Wild West’ where any doctor can state virtually anything online without consequence. … I strongly feel that the GMC, as the medical regulator, has a duty to protect the public from such harms, and that the public would expect it to act.

In documents filed to the High Court, Kneale alleges that Malhotra promoted “unscientific and dangerous information” that escalated as the pandemic progressed and especially after Malhotra’s father died in July 2021, which he attributed to the Pfizer vaccine.

It seems that the legal action was crowdfunded through the Good Law Project, and its website says:

When a doctor makes a public statement about a medical issue, we expect them to tell the truth and not mislead people. They have a professional responsibility to ensure the advice they give reflects the scientific evidence.

The UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) investigates doctors whose behaviour appears to have fallen below what we might reasonably expect of them. But it appears to have decided not to investigate doctors who spread vaccine misinformation – that is, statements which over-emphasise the harms of vaccines and under-emphasise their benefits.

Vaccine misinformation is misleading and potentially dangerous, especially when directed at groups who are at increased risk of harm from COVID-19, such as pregnant women. When medical doctors lend their professional authority to that misinformation, their statements can be influential. This could cause members of the public to believe in dangerous fake science, and erode public trust in the medical profession.

A doctor is working with Good Law Practice, the not for profit law firm set up by Good Law Project, to require the GMC to investigate doctors who deliberately share vaccine misinformation on social media and more widely. He is bringing the case because he (and other doctors) believe the GMC must fulfill [sic] its obligations to protect the public from misinformation.

He is challenging the GMC asking it to deliver on its main obligation – to protect the public.

On January 13th a piece appeared in the Guardian titled ‘BBC criticised for letting cardiologist “hijack” interview with false Covid jab claim‘ (he had been invited to give his views on statins):

“Malhotra has become a vocal figure for hesitancy about Covid vaccines, claiming they pose a greater threat than the virus itself – a view repeatedly debunked by factcheckers. On Friday, he reiterated his claim the jabs were a likely cause of his father’s death.

Peter Openshaw, a Professor of Experimental Medicine at Imperial College London, was also interviewed by the BBC on Friday.

“I did a rapid response interview on the BBC news channel this morning to say that vaccine side-effects are very, very rare in comparison with the preventable risks of COVID-19. The staff seemed alarmed and embarrassed that they had given him [Malhotra] a platform,” he tweeted.

Dr Stephen Griffin, a virologist at the University of Leeds, said: “I am genuinely astonished by the BBC allowing someone with a known extreme fringe view on mRNA vaccines and the extent to which they are associated with cardiovascular problems to either hijack an interview on a tenuously related topic to express these views, or indeed to appear at all following even a cursory background check.”

Prof Marc Dweck, the Chair of Clinical Cardiology at the University of Edinburgh, told the Guardian: “I think that Dr Malhotra’s opinions on both statins and Covid vaccines are misguided and in fact dangerous. The vast majority of cardiologists do not agree with his views and they are not based upon robust science.

“I would strongly urge patients to disregard his comments, which seem to be more concerned with furthering his profile (he does not have a cardiology career to speak of) rather than the wellbeing of the public. The BBC should not provide a platform for his views and should go to much greater lengths to research the people they invite to comment.”

Dr Matt Kneale, the Co-Chair of the Doctors’ Association, said Malhotra’s appearance was “deeply dangerous behaviour” and called on the General Medical Council to take action.

One might pause at this point to say “Eh?” Because as time has passed Dr Malhotra has been proved correct. The suggestion that mRNA vaccines are potentially harmful is no longer an extreme fringe view, nor is it misguided or dangerous or misinformation. It is mainstream. The factcheckers who debunked the idea that the vaccines were more dangerous than Covid itself for most recipients were, simply, wrong. And the idea that vaccination might protect pregnant women (not least as no trials were ever done on that group) had no evidence to support it, and the damaging effects have only later become apparent.

“Vaccine misinformation is misleading and potentially dangerous, especially when directed at groups who are at increased risk of harm from COVID-19, such as pregnant women,” said the Good Law Project. Indeed so. But who was providing that dangerous misinformation?

Not Dr Malhotra.

I intended to write to the GMC to refer the three accusers for professional misconduct until I saw that Dr Malhotra himself had done so. In a tweet in December 2024 he wrote:

I can confirm that I have referred 3 doctors to the @gmcuk  on what I believe are 2 counts of misconduct.

They are @doctor_oxford,  @drmattuk, & @trishgreenhalgh

GMC guidance is clear:

“You must treat colleagues with kindness, courtesy and respect. To develop and maintain effective teamworking and interpersonal relationships you must: listen to colleagues, communicate clearly, politely and considerately, recognise and show respect for colleagues’ skills and contributions, work collaboratively with colleagues and be willing to lead or follow as the circumstances require. … You must be compassionate towards colleagues who have problems with their performance or health. But you must put patient safety first at all times.”

My commitment to the profession has been faced with attack by fellow colleagues. This is perhaps the most disappointing part of the past few years. What kind of human being publicly attacks and tries to humiliate an individual whose entire family is dead, simply for speaking up for the vaccine injured and patient safety? A dispassionate observer could describe this as insensitive at best, and sociopathic behaviour, at worst (again, in part, explained by the psychopathic determinants of health).

A prominent medic Dr Rachel Clarke, on several occasions, published multiple defamatory tweets since 2022 where she refers to me as “ex -NHS doctor” and “Britain’s most notorious ant-vaxxer”. She weaponised a Mail on Sunday story (which can only be described as a hatchet job on myself and two other public figures) on statins.

I lost my NHS job that I loved, and was told by several NHS cardiologists (many of whom were supportive of my stance) I that I would find it difficult to get back into the NHS for a consultant post because of this Mail on Sunday article. Recently, five years later, a libel case launched by the two others named in the piece was won. The article has been taken down. The corruption and the truth was revealed – yet, my job was still lost. Others who have posted similar defamatory tweets or made such comments include individuals such as Dr Matt Kneale and Trish Greenhalgh. Is this the type of behaviour that is deemed acceptable professional conduct by the GMC?

Secondly In my view, these healthcare professionals – through their relational aggression – are the ones undermining trust in the profession. They deliberately undermine voices raising patient safety concern. Such behaviour is in my view a danger to public health.

See more here Daily Sceptic

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.