Dr. Srinivas Kakkilaya demands withdrawal of expert panel report on sudden cardiac deaths
Mangaluru: Well-known physician Dr. Srinivas Kakkilaya has urged the government to withdraw the recent report submitted by the expert committee headed by Dr. K.S. Ravindranath of the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research. The report concerns sudden cardiac deaths and, according to Dr. Kakkilaya, is incomplete and flawed.
Speaking to Vartha Bharati, Dr. Kakkilaya said that the report, as claimed by media outlets, states there is no link between COVID-19 vaccination and recent sudden deaths. However, he clarified that no such conclusion exists in the report. He pointed out that the studies cited by the committee have no connection to the actual study it claims to have conducted.
“No study referenced in the report addresses whether there is any connection between the COVID-19 vaccine and the recent sudden deaths occurring years after vaccination,” he said. He further questioned how reputed institutions like ICMR and Jayadeva Hospital could publish such inadequate reports, raising concerns over the state of medical science in the country.
Dr. Kakkilaya also criticised discrepancies in the data. "Even children can say that 53+17+180 equals 250. But the report lists the total as 249," he noted. He questioned how the committee could call it a ‘small percentage’ when 1 in 3 of the 77 cases examined showed no cause for heart attack. “If a third of the cases remain unexplained, how can that be considered negligible?” he asked.
He further pointed out that the report itself suggests the possibility of a new or unknown cause behind these cardiac deaths, which contradicts any blanket dismissal of a link with vaccines or past COVID-19 infections.
Dr. Kakkilaya stressed that unless there is clarity, neither the Jayadeva Institute, nor its director, nor the state or central government, nor any doctor has the authority to declare “there is no link” between vaccines and these deaths. “The only honest answer is: ‘We do not know yet,’” he said.
Calling the report half-baked and mathematically incorrect, Dr. Kakkilaya demanded its immediate withdrawal and urged the committee to conduct a proper, in-depth study over the next six months and only then draw any conclusions.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
