Doctors have demanded that the General Medical Council (GMC) take action against cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra after he linked covid vaccines to cancers in the royal family.

When the medical establishment fears Its critics. A scathing rebuke of doctors who try to silence dissent. In defence of our friend and colleague Dr. Aseem Malholtra.

Click on the picture below for the article in the British Medical Journal.

When the Medical Establishment Fears Its Critics: A Scathing Rebuke of Doctors Who Try to Silence Dissent.

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

1. 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’.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Ian Brighthope

Below is my email to the British Medical Journal

PROFESSOR IAN BRIGHTHOPE

MBBS., FACNEM., FACHM.,Dip.Ag.Sci.

Fellow Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine

Dear Ms. Dobson,

Re: “GMC is urged to act after doctor links covid vaccines to cancer in royal family”

Dr Malhotra’s comments should be a starting gun for better data, not a finishing hammer on his career. If the mRNA platforms are as safe in this respect as many believe, strengthened surveillance and open analysis will confirm it and quiet the controversy.

Silencing doctors is not a substitute for science. The furore over calls to discipline Aseem Malhotra for suggesting a link between covid-19 mRNA vaccination and cancer does not advance patient safety or public trust; it narrows the space for the very scrutiny that medicine claims to value.

Please consider the following as an Opinion Piece for the BMJ.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and cancer surveillance: evidence demands debate

Silencing doctors is not a substitute for science. The furore over calls to discipline Aseem Malhotra for suggesting a link between covid-19 mRNA vaccination and cancer does not advance patient safety or public trust; it narrows the space for the very scrutiny that medicine claims to value. If the hypothesis is wrong, let data show it decisively. If there is a signal—however small or confined to subgroups—we should find it, characterise it, and act proportionately. The BMJ’s own report on the controversy underscores how fast reputational judgments can outrun methodical inquiry. BMJ

What exists today is not “proof” of causality but a convergence of biologically plausible concerns and early clinical signals that justify open inquiry. Several peer-reviewed case reports describe rapid post-booster progression of T-cell lymphomas, including angio-immunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and mycosis fungoides. Authors explicitly note biological plausibility given the strong engagement of T-follicular helper biology by nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccination. One case does not make a causative chain; a recurring pattern in the same cellular lineages is the sort of smoke that merits a careful look for fire. (See examples Frontiers in Medicine, 2021 and Vaccines, 2025.) Frontiers+1

On the immunology side, repeated mRNA exposure has been reported to skew antibody responses toward IgG4, a subclass with reduced Fc-effector activity—functions such as antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity that can matter for tumour immunosurveillance. No single paper proves that this shift increases cancer risk in the population. But it is a mechanistic breadcrumb that warrants targeted studies in high-risk groups—people with prior malignancy, clonal haematopoiesis, or immunosuppression—rather than blanket denial. (See Immunity & Ageing, 2024 and Journal of Infection, 2025.) BioMed Central+1

A third strand is latent virus reactivation. Descriptions of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)–related inflammatory syndromes and varicella-zoster outbreaks after vaccination have appeared, especially in susceptible hosts. EBV is implicated in several lymphoid neoplasms; persistent or dysregulated reactivation could plausibly intersect with oncogenesis or relapse dynamics. Again, this is not a claim of proof; it is a call to monitor what we know can be relevant biology.

Finally, platform design itself deserves calm, transparent characterisation. RNA/lipid nanoparticle systems can modulate type-I interferon signalling to optimise antigen expression and tolerability. Interferon tone also shapes antitumour immunity. Add to this the unresolved debate about manufacturing residuals in released lots. The presence of residual fragments is not a demonstration of oncogenic hazard. It is, however, a quality-control signal that should be quantified independently with validated methods, with results correlated to clinical outcomes by batch.

In public conversation these threads are often caricatured: “You’re saying vaccines cause cancer.” That is not my position, nor is it an accurate portrayal of what many clinicians are asking. The point is more modest and more scientific: there are credible mechanisms, non-zero clinical signals in relevant tumour types, and massive exposure at scale. The ethical response is not to police speech but to sharpen surveillance and research. I’ve set out the full argument and proposed framework in my analysis, “Covid mRNA is a Class One Carcinogen,” which collates the immunology, clinical alerts, and quality-systems questions requiring transparent, independent evaluation. (Link: https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/mrna-is-a-class-one-carcinogen)

What would a science-first approach look like?

First, precision pharmacovigilance. Link vaccination records with cancer registries at individual level, using pre-specified biological windows post-dose and stratifying by tumour type, stage, prior therapy, age, sex, and booster status. Publish protocols in advance. Make negative and positive findings equally visible.

Second, focused immunology. In oncology and pre-malignant cohorts, longitudinally profile antibody subclassing, Fc-effector functions, NK-cell activity, interferon signalling, antigen persistence, and T-cell phenotypes after primary series and boosters. If nothing untoward appears, say so with data. If something does, we can risk-stratify or modify schedules accordingly.

Third, quality assurance in the open. Establish ring-trial-validated methods for detecting and quantifying any residual DNA or sequence elements in final products. Report results by lot. The aim is not to alarm but to ensure the same assay rigour we expect elsewhere in biopharma.

Fourth, clinical vigilance where signals exist. When case reports touch the same histologies, encourage expedited registry studies and clinician alerts—not to assign blame, but to accelerate signal clarification.

Some will argue that any public airing of uncertainty fuels hesitancy. I disagree. The fastest way to erode confidence is to declare complex questions “settled,” punish dissent, and then shift positions later without explanation. The opposite—transparent hypotheses, fair engagement with critics, and timely course correction when warranted—is how vaccines (and medicine) retain legitimacy. BMJ, with its history of robust debate, is ideally placed to convene that conversation.

Dr Malhotra’s comments should be a starting gun for better data, not a finishing hammer on his career. If the mRNA platforms are as safe in this respect as many believe, strengthened surveillance and open analysis will confirm it and quiet the controversy. If there are narrow risks in identifiable groups or intervals, we can mitigate them without abandoning benefits. Either way, patients win—and so does science.

Author: Ian Brighthope, FACNEM, FACHM. MBBS, DipAgSci.

Competing interests: None declared.
Contact: ian.brighthope

Mobile: +61 ………

Links:

• BMJ report on the controversy: https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r1896 BMJ

• AITL case report (Frontiers in Medicine, 2021): https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2021.798095/full Frontiers

• Mycosis fungoides case (Vaccines, 2025): https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/13/7/678 MDPI

• IgG4 class switching (Immunity & Ageing, 2024): https://immunityageing.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12979-024-00466-9 BioMed Central

• IgG4 subclass/fc-effector changes (Journal of Infection, 2025): https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(24)00053-7/fulltext journalofinfection.com

• Your Substack analysis: https://ianbrighthope.substack.com/p/mrna-is-a-class-one-carcinogen

END

Kind regards,

Professor Ian Brighthope

Ian Brighthope is an Australian clinician and author focusing on integrative oncology and nutritional medicine.

He writes on public health policy and vaccine pharmacovigilance, and has advised professional groups on oncology-adjacent supportive care.

Director: Nutritional and Environmental Medicine.
National Institute of Integrative Medicine.

www.niim.com.au

Founding president (1982):
The Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine.

www.acnem.org

Co-Founder:
The Australasian Integrative Medicine Association.

www.aima.net.au

Founder

The World Of Wellness International Limited

www.worldofwellness.life

END