Wes Streeting could face legal action after accusing cardiologist of spreading 'poisonous lies'

Following the conference, in which Dr Malhotra quoted oncologist Professor Angus Dalgleish stating Covid vaccines may have been linked to cancers affecting members of the Royal Family, Mr Streeting condemned the remarks as “poisonous lies” and “dangerous extremism”.

Mr Streeting said: “These anti-vax lies have consequences. They’ve led to the return of diseases we thought we had defeated – measles, whooping cough. Children dying from preventable illnesses in this, the 21st century.”

And he added: “When we are seeing falling numbers of parents getting their children vaccinated, and a resurgence of disease we had previously eradicated, it is shockingly irresponsible for Nigel Farage to give a platform to these poisonous lies. Farage should apologise and sever all ties with this dangerous extremism.”

The comments went viral, prompting headlines across the political spectrum and calls for the General Medical Council (GMC) to act.

Dr Malhotra - who is Chief Medical Adviser to the non-profit medical organisation Make Europe Healthy Again - insists he has been misrepresented, arguing the real cause of vaccine hesitancy lies not in misinformation but in the “coercive, non-transparent” approach taken by governments and health authorities during the pandemic.

“Coercion and secrecy have done far more to undermine confidence in vaccines than any social-media critic,” he said.

Next week, he will deliver this message as keynote speaker at the European Parliament, addressing an international audience for Make Europe Healthy Again. He is expected to tell MEPs mandatory vaccination policies “eroded trust, deepened polarisation and undermined informed consent - the cornerstone of ethical medicine.”

At the same time, Dr Malhotra’s professional conduct is under renewed scrutiny. The GMC is considering fresh complaints from six doctors who have previously raised concerns about his Covid-vaccine comments, alleging he has made unfounded claims and breached professional standards.

But the cardiologist has rallied a significant level of support from medical colleagues. A joint letter to the GMC, signed by more than 100 doctors, surgeons, psychiatrists and scientists, accuses the regulator of presiding over a “witch hunt” and urges it to reject the “politically motivated” complaints.

The signatories - including senior consultants from the Children’s Covid Vaccines Advisory Council, Doctors for Patients UK, the Health Advisory and Recovery Team and the UK Medical Freedom Alliance - argue Dr Malhotra has acted “in line with his ethical duties” by raising legitimate questions about the long-term safety of the Covid vaccines.

Their letter states: “Censuring Dr Malhotra would have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers, which is highly detrimental to patient safety.

“Far from bringing the profession into disrepute, large sections of the public have expressed gratitude to Dr Malhotra for having the courage to speak out.

“This sort of transparency, even for negative outcomes, is vital for maintaining public trust in medical professionals.”

• UK returns 26 migrants to France but 10,000 cross Channel since 'one-in, one-out' deal enforced
• Pro-Palestine protesters vow to push on with major demonstration despite Hamas-Israel ceasefire
• Epping Council 'failed to provide suitable housing' for baby with rare genetic condition

The controversy follows the publication of Dr Malhotra’s peer-reviewed paper, “Mandates and Lack of Transparency on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Has Fuelled Distrust - An Apology to Patients Is Long Overdue,” published last week in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law and co-authored with US research psychologist Dr Andrea Lamont Nazarenko.

The commentary argues public-health authorities damaged their own credibility by enforcing vaccine mandates, suppressing debate and overstating evidence on safety and efficacy.

“The Covid-19 pandemic exposed how far the field has drifted from the roots of a science in service of the people,” it states.

“Ethical dilemmas, coercive policies and a lack of transparency undermined public trust, while corporate and political interests increasingly shaped decisions at the expense of open science.”

The authors cite data showing that trust in health authorities plummeted after the introduction of vaccine passports and employment mandates, noting that official US surveys show confidence in agencies like the CDC falling from 73 per cent in 2020 to 61 per cent by 2025.

They also reference a BMJ Global Health analysis, which concluded that mandatory Covid-19 vaccine policies “damaged public trust, vaccine confidence, human rights and social wellbeing.”

“Transparency about vaccine risks strengthens trust,” Drs Malhotra and Nazarenko write, “whereas withholding information fosters distrust and fuels conspiracy beliefs.”

The paper argues that where early decisions were made in uncertainty, governments had an ethical duty to revise policy once more evidence emerged – a duty, the paper claims, they failed to fulfil.

It calls for a “global moratorium on mRNA Covid-19 vaccines” pending independent re-evaluation of risks and benefits, alongside formal apologies from governments and medical bodies to those who suffered vaccine injuries or professional retaliation for questioning policy.

The paper urges public-health institutions to recommit to three principles:
- Full transparency of data
- Independent evaluation of evidence
- Accountability through public acknowledgement of harm

It also warns that ignoring dissent has “silenced whistleblowers and suffocated science,” describing reputational attacks used to deter questioning.

“Questioning is not hostility to science; it is fidelity to it,” the authors state. “Suppression may quiet critics, but it suffocates science.”

Mr Streeting has stood by his criticism. In his post on X (formerly Twitter) and in subsequent interviews, he said the government was determined to “restore public confidence in vaccination” and would “not allow deliberate misinformation to reverse decades of progress.”

While Dr Malhotra has not commented directly on those remarks, his supporters insist he has been careful to distinguish between established childhood vaccines and newer Covid shots, arguing that criticism of the latter should not be conflated with opposition to immunisation as a whole.

The row has sharply divided the medical community. Professor Dalgleish, the oncologist who first raised concerns about a possible cancer link, said:

“As soon as it became clear the vaccines were not preventing infection, I warned that failure to be truthful would fatally compromise the national vaccination programme, including MMR. That advice seems to have been buried.”

Other senior oncologists and public-health experts have challenged Dr Malhotra’s statements as reckless and unsupported by robust evidence, warning that speculation risks undermining confidence in essential immunisation campaigns.

Dr Malhotra has advised US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr on vaccine policy as part of a wider review of mRNA technology in the United States.

His paper references recent US Department of Health decisions to scale back investment in mRNA research following concerns over side effects and calls from American scientists for independent safety reviews.

He is expected to expand on these points when he addresses the European Parliament next week, urging EU leaders to “restore trust through truth, transparency and choice.”

The GMC declined to comment.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter