GMC to Punish Cardiologist Linking Vaccines to UK Royal Family Cancers
In free societies, criticism is not a bug—it is a feature. It is how professionals are held to account, mistakes are exposed, progress is made, and trust is built.
So why is it that when a doctor, such as Dr. Aseem Malhotra, raises uncomfortable questions—about nutrition, health policy, industry influence, or other matters—some of his colleagues reflexively demand silence? I know the reason/s as I have experienced it my entire career over 50+ years.
Why do certain doctors, institutions, or parts of the media leap to protect not the integrity of medicine, but the comfort of the profession? It is time to call out this tin-eared, self-protective impulse of the stupid for what it is: cowardice dressed in prestige, suppression masquerading as professionalism. It happened to me again recently when I was asked to speak to a medical group.
The Pattern is Unmistakable
Criticism of medical orthodoxy is often met with a flurry of condemnation, sometimes even legal threats, retraction demands, or efforts to rescind grants or speaking invitations. The message: “Don’t challenge us in public. Don’t deviate from the party line.” The group think is enforced with all the subtlety of a fine guillotine.
Dr. Malhotra’s case, whatever its merits or demerits in the debate, is not unique. It is illustrative: a highly qualified physician who dares to question dominant narratives—on cardiovascular disease, dietary fats, salt, statins, public health messaging—and is subjected not to reasoned engagement but to ostracisation. To those who idiotically demand his silence: you do not protect the public by silencing dissent; you hideously endanger it.
Why the Attempts to Silence are Destructive
- They inhibit scientific progress. Medicine advances not only through controlled experiments but through challenge, dissent, replication, questioning assumptions. When dissent is stigmatised or punished, science stagnates, leading to the expression ‘science marches funeral by funeral’.
- They erode public trust. The public does not respect silence so much as they despise hypocrisy. If doctors are seen to suppress debate, people infer there must be something to hide—industry ties, conflict of interest, or simply intellectual laziness.
- They reduce the range of policy options. Health policy is not a one-size-fits-all. When certain lines of thinking are disallowed, we adopt policies that are less adaptive, less responsive, and possibly more harmful.
- They empower the powerful. Big Pharma, public health bureaucracies, and institutional hierarchies benefit highly when dissenting voices are marginalised. The louder the demand for silence, the less distributed power becomes.
The Morality of Dissent
There is a fundamental ethical principle at stake: freedom of speech-and full, free informed consent. Not unfettered, of course, but a robust principle that allows those within medicine to criticise what they see, to advocate change, or to expose what is harmful (whether it be overprescription, overhyping of certain interventions, or ignoring alternative but plausible evidence). To try to suppress that speech is to betray the very mission of medicine: improving health, reducing harm and suffering, seeking the truth.
Doctor-Exempt? Infallible? Laughable Pretensions
Some doctors act as though once one dons a white coat, one enters an aura of infallibility. But medicine has always been provisional. Yesterday’s virulent idea might be today’s disgrace. If doctors want the prestige, they must take the responsibility—criticism, challenges, and all.
Demanding that legitimate criticisms be shut down is tantamount to claiming that you, the critic, are not trying in good faith, or that the critic must conform to your preferred narrative. That’s an absurd position for anyone serious about science or ethics to take.
On Dr. Malhotra: A Case Study
Whatever one’s view of every statement Dr. Malhotra has made, what cannot be reasonably defended is the attempt by some in medicine to hush him, or to treat his dissent as beyond the pale. One must distinguish between dishonest or poorly-evidenced claims (which deserve rebuttal) and the idea that dissent itself is disallowed. Critique of claims should be scientific; critique of the claimant by shutting down their platform is a gentler but no less real form of censorship.
The Shame of Those Who Call for Silence
To those doctors who demand that criticism of Dr. Malhotra or anyone else be silenced, consider:
- You betray the duty to advance health care by trying to protect reputation over truth.
- You privilege consensus over reason.
- You silence voices that might be correct, that might illuminate, that might prevent harm.
- You risk turning medicine into dogma-although in many respects it already is dogma.
What Should Instead Be Done
- Encourage open debate. If one disagrees with Dr. Malhotra (or others), engage with evidence, peer-review, replicable studies. Don’t call for censorship.
- Disclose conflicts of interest when they arise. Let the public see where incentives might distort policy or communication, especially from the medical complainants.
- Support forums for dissent—journals, conferences, online platforms where fair critique is allowed.
- Celebrate those who take intellectual risk. Voice dissent respectfully, but don’t shy from it.
Finally, demanding the shut-down of free speech in medicine is not protection—it is apathy. It is a way of saying “comfort above inquiry,” “reputation above truth,” “fear above courage.” In matters of public health, such an attitude is not simply unfortunate; it borders on negligence.
If doctors can’t stand debate—if they prefer silence to scrutiny—they should reconsider their vocation.
source ianbrighthope.substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, 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.