The COVID-19 Vaccine Controversy: MAHA Chief Medical Advisor Claims It Should Never Have Been Administered
In a bold and provocative speech at the Reform UK party conference in Birmingham on September 6, 2025, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist and chief medical advisor to the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Action group, declared that “not a single person should have been injected” with the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Citing what he describes as overwhelming evidence of harm, Malhotra has linked the vaccines to serious adverse events, including a surge in cancers, potentially even affecting high-profile figures like King Charles III and the Princess of Wales.
His claims challenge the mainstream narrative, raising questions about the safety of what he calls an experimental gene therapy rushed to market with inadequate clinical trials.
A Surge in Cancers: The Royal Family Connection
Dr. Malhotra’s most striking assertion came when he relayed the opinion of an unnamed “eminent oncologist” who believes it is “highly likely” that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were a significant factor in the cancer diagnoses of King Charles III and Catherine, Princess of Wales, announced in February and March 2024, respectively. While Malhotra provided no direct evidence linking the royals’ diagnoses to the vaccines, he emphasized that “many other doctors feel the same way,” pointing to a growing undercurrent of skepticism within the medical community. He cited “hundreds of studies” that he claims demonstrate the vaccines’ interference with genes, potentially increasing cancer risk.
This claim aligns with concerns raised by other controversial figures, such as Dr. Angus Dalgleish, an emeritus professor of oncology at the University of London, who has also suggested that mRNA boosters may drive rapid cancer progression. These assertions, though dismissed by mainstream health authorities like the CDC, FDA, and Cancer Research UK, resonate with a segment of the population wary of the vaccines’ rapid development and novel mRNA technology. Malhotra argues that the vaccines’ mechanism—delivering genetic instructions to produce a viral protein—qualifies them as gene therapy rather than traditional vaccines, a distinction he believes was downplayed to expedite public acceptance.
Limited Clinical Trials and Experimental Nature
Malhotra contends that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, were rushed to market with “abysmal” clinical trials that failed to adequately assess long-term safety. Unlike traditional vaccines, which use weakened or inactivated pathogens, mRNA vaccines introduce synthetic genetic material to instruct cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Malhotra and others, including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine skeptic, argue that this makes them experimental gene therapies, not “tried and true” vaccines.
The initial trials, conducted in 2020, excluded key populations like cancer patients and those on immunosuppressive therapies, limiting data on how the vaccines might interact with complex medical conditions. Malhotra points to the speed of development—less than a year from viral sequencing to emergency use authorization—as evidence of insufficient scrutiny. While global regulators maintain that preclinical and manufacturing data sufficed for updated vaccines targeting new variants, critics like Malhotra argue that the lack of long-term human trials left critical safety questions unanswered.
Evidence of Adverse Events: A Growing Body of Concern
Malhotra’s claims are bolstered by reports of adverse events, some severe, following COVID-19 vaccination. As of May 14, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) recorded 152,748 adverse events following mRNA vaccine administration, including 24 cases in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors, six of which were suspicious for immune-related adverse events (irAEs). While the study found no increased risk of irAEs overall, these cases fuel concerns about rare but serious side effects in specific populations.
More alarmingly, Malhotra highlights reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males aged 12–29, with the CDC noting 39–47 cases per million doses administered. Though the CDC argues that the benefits of vaccination outweigh these risks, Malhotra contends that the public was not adequately informed of such dangers, especially for low-risk groups. He also references anecdotal “died suddenly” cases, which some vaccine skeptics have attempted to link to vaccination, though no causal connection has been established by mainstream science.
Stories of adverse events have proliferated, particularly on platforms like X, where users report sudden illnesses or deaths of young, healthy individuals post-vaccination. While these accounts lack scientific validation, they amplify public distrust, especially when paired with claims from figures like Malhotra and Kennedy. Malhotra argues that the pharmaceutical industry’s profit motives and the World Health Organization’s alleged “capture” by influential figures like Bill Gates have suppressed critical examination of these risks.
The Broader Implications: A Call for a Moratorium
Malhotra’s speech included a call for a moratorium on mRNA vaccines to review their safety, a stance echoed by Kennedy, who recently canceled $500 million in federal mRNA vaccine funding. This move, criticized by experts like Dr. Paul Offit as “unscientific,” reflects growing resistance to mRNA technology, which Malhotra claims may harm more than it helps. He argues that the vaccines’ immunogenicity—a double-edged sword that boosts immune responses in some contexts but risks overstimulation in others—could trigger unforeseen consequences, including cancer.
Mainstream health authorities, including the CDC, FDA, and NHS, refute these claims, asserting no evidence links COVID-19 vaccines to cancer. Cancer Research UK has emphasized that the vaccines are “safe and effective” for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Yet, Malhotra’s narrative resonates with those who see the rapid deployment of mRNA technology as a gamble with public health.