The UK Health Security Agency recently warned of up to 160,000 preventable measles cases in London if the uptake of the MMR vaccine doesn’t improve. Low uptake of the measles vaccine persists, even decades after the discredited Wakefield study falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism. Misinformation about vaccines can cause long-term harm.
It was this concern that led me to report a doctor to the UK regulator – the General Medical Council (GMC) – for spreading false information about the COVID-19 vaccine. To my great surprise, the GMC has up to now refused to even investigate the issue, despite dozens of complaints.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, is a private practice cardiologist and author whose works includes “The 21 Day Immunity Plan” – marketed as boosting immunity to COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, he has used his status as registered medical practitioner to spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation to over 550,000 followers online.
In September 2022, and ever since, Malhotra has asserted controversial links between mRNA vaccines and heart disease, and led a call to suspend the UK vaccination program. He has used Twitter to voice his concerns, stating,
As a cardiologist, it’s my responsibility to urgently inform every doctor, patient, and member of the public that the mRNA product likely contributed to all unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failures from 2021 until proven otherwise.
Yet, there is no scientific evidence that supports his claim.
Malhotra cites a narrative review that he authored, published in the low-impact Journal of Insulin Resistance – a journal that hadn’t published for years, and where Malhotra sits on the editorial board – which veered entirely off the journal’s intended scope. The review was littered with non-peer-reviewed references, inaccurately attributed sources to prestigious journals, data figures from a recognised anti-vaccination organisation, and sources that bore editorial “expressions of concern.” Given the subject matter was beyond the journal’s communal expertise, it raises serious questions about the availability of suitable peer reviewers, beyond potential biases from the editorial board.
I reported Malhotra’s behaviour to the GMC in late 2022. Although the GMC conceded that his statements deviated from standard medical perspectives, they chose not to investigate. Their decision was partially driven by a fear of inadvertently boosting his media presence, implicitly acknowledging that his message was not in the public’s interest. They argued that his comments were not “egregious enough” to question his professional competence. Despite additional requests from myself and others for an internal review, backed by evidence of further outlandish claims, the GMC remained unresponsive.
As a result, I have initiated judicial review proceedings, asking the High Court to examine the GMC’s decision. Judicial review allows the court to scrutinise public bodies’ decisions, assessing alleged flaws in reasoning or legality. My legal argument contends that the GMC wrongly applied an absolutist free speech defence, rather than properly considering whether Malhotra used his medical status to spread vaccine falsehoods.
Recently, the GMC removed a surgeon from its register for promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories online. Regulators from the United States to Canada and Australia have also acted against other medical practitioners for their vaccine misinformation – some of whom have literally shared the same stage as Dr Malhotra during his international speaking tours.
Doctors deserve considerable latitude to express dissenting scientific opinions informed by evidence. However this freedom doesn’t absolve professionals of their fundamental duties to demonstrate integrity and honesty, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain public trust. These principles, emphasised by the GMC in their Good Medical Practice guidelines and social media advice, are fundamental. Disseminating clearly misleading claims about vaccines breaches these widely recognised professional duties.
Malhotra’s behaviour appears to be escalating, with unvalidated claims that regulators criminally colluded with pharmaceutical companies to hide vaccine harms. His aim no longer appears to be constructive scientific discourse, and there are multiple examples of him insinuating, without any evidence, that various high profile deaths were due to vaccines. His statements risk fuelling paranoia and mistrust, discouraging vaccination against a deadly virus and driving paranoia about the future use of mRNA platforms.
Research shows vaccine misinformation on social media deters uptake. When doctors spread unproven assertions to hundreds of thousands of followers, consequences for individual and for public health are profound. If regulators like the GMC ignore doctors who promote medical misinformation, public confidence plummets, while vaccine hesitancy climbs. This jeopardises community protection against infectious diseases and risks public health in future outbreaks. Doctors spreading online misinformation must be seen to be violating professionalism as seriously as they would be in the context of serious clinical errors. Protecting patients demands consistent regulation in both spheres.
Most doctors recognise that disseminating misinformation contradicts their ethical responsibilities. However, inconsistent oversight allows a vocal minority to endanger public health while retaining professional legitimacy. This judicial review is a defining moment in which an independent body will pass judgement on whether the GMC can abrogate its responsibility when doctors misbehave on social media. The ramifications of this case stretch far beyond one doctor: they will influence future decisions by the GMC and, conceivably, regulators in other countries.
The social contract that a doctor has balances our privileges with our duties to honesty, integrity and public wellbeing. Free speech doesn’t absolve professionals from these obligations. I’m legally challenging the GMC to establish that doctors must be held accountable for online misinformation, as they are for clinical negligence in person. This will help restore public trust and safeguard patients from medical disinformation. If this case fails, it could have wide-reaching implications that harm the safeguards for the public – the very safeguards the GMC was formed to ensure work correctly.
If you agree that this is an important cause, one way you can support us is to sign our petition to the GMC, and to share details about it with your friends and colleagues.
While I have been given support in taking this case forward by the Good Law Project, there is nonetheless some personal financial risk in taking this case forward, if the High Court decides that costs cannot be capped. As such there is a real risk this action could falter before it is even tested in court. If you are able, you can support this legal action by making a donation at actions.goodlawproject.org/gmc.
I think it is vital that doctors with fringe and false beliefs are not able to undermine the public’s trust in life-saving medicines, and if you agree, I’d greatly appreciate your support.
