Dr. Aseem Malhotra

When it comes to how we, you know, it would do our jobs and we have to, and we held in that esteem because of that reason.

So for me,

Trying to break out of that conventional paradigm happened because I came to realize that the information that I believed as being gospel truth as a medical student, as a junior doctor, it's published in a medical journal, it's science, right?

Didn't question it.

I then came to realize that, hold on a minute, there's a lot more to this.

And I used, of course, the heart disease paradigm to understand why we hadn't curbed heart disease, even though it was predicted by Nobel Prize winners Brown and Goldstein, I think, in the late 90s, who discovered the LDL receptor was involved in coronary artery disease.

They predicted the end

The eradication of heart disease may completely end by the early 2000s.

Didn't happen.

Still the number one killer on the planet.

Exactly, despite a mass prescription of statins.

Three reasons I can tell you, big low-hanging fruit, why have we got less death rates from heart disease?

If you were a smoker, your mortality rate increased 50%.

Smoking reductions played a big role.

Um, emergency treatment in specifically in, in the acute setting of an acute heart attack stenting or thrombolytics, which we used to use, right?

But the third one, which, uh, the Bernard Lowne, pioneering cardiologist got the Nobel prize for was the defibrillator.

So what used to happen is patients would be admitted to hospital with a heart attack.

And the first 24 to 48 hours after having a heart attack, you're most vulnerable to having a cardiac arrhythmia that causes you to have a cardiac arrest.

And patients would die.

Completely.