“We Have Been LIED TO...” The Dr Banned For Speaking Out | Dr Aseem Malhotra
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses concerns over the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, citing a reanalysis of clinical trials suggesting a higher risk of serious harm than initially reported. It highlights the lack of transparency and potential conflicts of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, questioning the narrative pushed by mainstream media and emphasizing the importance of informed consent. The speaker argues for a more cautious approach, particularly for high-risk groups, and calls for better information dissemination to prevent similar crises in the future.
Takeaways
- 🔍 The original clinical trials by Pfizer and Moderna, which reported 95-100% efficacy, were reanalyzed by eminent scientists and found to have a serious harm rate of 1 in 800, suggesting more harm than good in terms of hospitalization, disability, or life-changing events.
- 🚑 A comparison to past vaccine rollouts shows that other vaccines were suspended for much lower harm rates, such as the swine flu vaccine due to Guillain-Barré syndrome at a rate of 1 in 100,000.
- 🩸 The reanalysis revealed that 40% of serious harms were related to clotting disorders, including lung clots and heart attacks, highlighting a significant risk associated with the vaccine.
- 📉 Real-world data from the UK indicated that the vaccine's benefit in preventing hospitalization was minimal, requiring the vaccination of 2,500 people over 70 to prevent one hospitalization with the Omicron strain.
- 📊 The British Heart Foundation's statement that myocarditis or pericarditis risk post-vaccination is very low is contested, with the speaker suggesting a disregard for reanalysis and other studies showing increased cardiac events.
- 💊 The speaker criticizes the lack of transparency and the influence of big pharma on medical information, suggesting that this has skewed the understanding of the vaccine's benefits and risks.
- 📈 The use of relative risk reduction in vaccine trials is highlighted as misleading, with the actual absolute risk reduction being much lower and not effectively communicated to the public.
- 👴 The potential benefits of the vaccine for high-risk groups like the elderly might have been overshadowed by the lack of informed consent and the high rate of serious harm.
- 🌐 The script suggests that the global response to COVID-19, including vaccine rollouts, was not as effective as initially thought and may have had a net negative impact on society.
- 🧬 The discussion points to the possibility that COVID-19 was a lab-engineered virus, which has implications for the nature of the virus and the response to the pandemic.
- 🛑 The script concludes with a call for greater transparency and a reevaluation of the system to prevent similar situations in the future, emphasizing the importance of accurate information for public health.
Q & A
What was the main concern raised about the vaccine trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna?
-The main concern was that the trials, which reported 95-100% effectiveness, were reanalyzed by eminent scientists and found to have a serious harm rate of 1 in 800, suggesting that the vaccine could cause more harm than good.
What does a 1 in 800 harm rate for a vaccine imply?
-A 1 in 800 harm rate implies that for every 800 people vaccinated, one person is likely to suffer serious harm, such as hospitalization, disability, or a life-changing event, which is considered unacceptable compared to past vaccine recalls for much lower harm rates.
How does the harm rate of the COVID-19 vaccine compare to historical vaccine recalls?
-The harm rate of 1 in 800 for the COVID-19 vaccine is significantly higher than the rates that led to the suspension of the swine flu vaccine (1 in 100,000) and the Rota virus vaccine (1 in 10,000).
What was the reanalysis of the vaccine trials published in?
-The reanalysis of the vaccine trials was published in the journal Vaccine, which is a premier journal for vaccines.
What was the British Heart Foundation's statement regarding the risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination?
-The British Heart Foundation stated that up to one in 10,000 people with the Pfizer vaccine might experience myocarditis or pericarditis, and for the Moderna vaccine, the risk was not possible to estimate due to infrequent use in the UK.
What was the speaker's disagreement with the British Heart Foundation's statement?
-The speaker disagreed, arguing that the British Heart Foundation is part of the establishment, which may be biased due to funding and links to pharmaceutical companies, and that they are ignoring other data that suggests more harm than good from the vaccine.
What was the real-world data from the UK regarding the vaccine's effectiveness in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 among the over 70s?
-The real-world data from the UK showed that after two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, 2,500 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent one person from being hospitalized with COVID-19, indicating a very low absolute benefit.
What is the concept of relative risk reduction, and how was it used in the context of the COVID-19 vaccine trials?
-Relative risk reduction is a statistical measure that represents the proportionate reduction in risk of an event (e.g., infection) in the group receiving an intervention compared to a control group. In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine trials, a 95% relative risk reduction was reported, which was misleading as it did not reflect the actual number of infections prevented.
What is the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction?
-Relative risk reduction shows the proportional decrease in risk, while absolute risk reduction shows the actual number of events (e.g., infections) prevented per a certain number of people treated, providing a clearer picture of the vaccine's real-world effectiveness.
What was the speaker's conclusion on the overall impact of the COVID-19 vaccine introduction on the population?
-The speaker concluded that the COVID-19 vaccine introduction has had a catastrophic overall net negative effect on the population and society, suggesting that more harm than good has been done.
What does the speaker suggest as a potential issue with the information provided by mainstream media and health authorities?
-The speaker suggests that mainstream media and health authorities may have provided information that was not critically appraised or transparent, leading to a strong narrative that may not have accurately reflected the true benefits and risks of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Outlines
🚨 Vaccine Safety Concerns and Efficacy Doubts
The speaker raises serious concerns about the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, suggesting that the original trials indicating 95-100% effectiveness were flawed. Eminent scientists reanalyzed the data and found a serious harm rate of 1 in 800, which is higher than the harm rates that led to the suspension of other vaccines in the past. The speaker emphasizes the importance of this data and questions the rollout of the vaccine, especially given the low benefit-to-harm ratio in certain age groups.
🔍 Critique of Vaccine Risk Communication and Real-World Data
This paragraph discusses the communication of vaccine risks, particularly myocarditis and pericarditis, and the speaker disagrees with the British Heart Foundation's assessment, citing potential biases due to ties with pharmaceutical companies. The speaker calls for a more transparent and accurate representation of risks and benefits, referencing real-world data from the UK and other studies that suggest a less favorable risk-benefit profile for the vaccine than initially portrayed.
🦠 COVID-19 Severity and Vaccine Introduction Reflections
The speaker reflects on the severity of COVID-19, especially in the early stages, and the symptoms experienced by those affected. They discuss the possibility that the virus was human-engineered and the controversy surrounding its origin. The paragraph also touches on the debate about whether the introduction of the vaccine had a net positive or negative effect on public health, with the speaker leaning towards the latter conclusion based on the data they have seen.
📊 Misleading Vaccine Trial Data and the Importance of Absolute Risk Reduction
The speaker criticizes the presentation of vaccine trial data, particularly the use of relative risk reduction, which can be misleading. They explain the concept of absolute risk reduction and how it provides a more accurate picture of the vaccine's benefits. The speaker also discusses the problems with the original COVID-19 vaccine trials and the lack of long-term safety testing compared to other vaccines.
🤔 The Impact of Vaccine Narrative on Public Perception and Decision-Making
This paragraph explores the impact of the narrative around the vaccine's effectiveness and the role of mainstream media in shaping public perception. The speaker empathizes with public figures who may have been misled by the information they received and the difficulty of changing the narrative once it has been established. The speaker also discusses the importance of informed consent and the need for transparency in medical information.
🛡️ The Need for Systemic Transparency in Healthcare and Public Health Communication
The speaker argues for greater transparency in the healthcare system to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future. They discuss the importance of having accurate and vetted scientific information available early on and the challenges of changing established narratives. The speaker also calls for a critical appraisal of the evidence and a system that prioritizes public health over commercial interests.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Vaccine Trials
💡Efficacy
💡Harm Rate
💡Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
💡Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)
💡Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)
💡Myocarditis
💡Vaccine Mandates
💡Long COVID
💡Lab Leak Theory
💡Informed Consent
Highlights
The reanalysis of the original clinical trials by eminent scientists suggested that the vaccine might cause serious harm at a rate of 1 in 800, which was higher than the hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 itself.
The high rate of serious harm from the vaccine, including hospitalization, disability, or life-changing events, was deemed unacceptable compared to historical vaccine recalls for much lower harm rates.
40% of the serious harms identified were related to clotting disorders such as lung clots and heart attacks.
UK data from early 2023 showed that for the over 70s, 2,500 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent one hospitalization from COVID-19 with the Omicron strain.
The British Heart Foundation's claim of a very low risk of myocarditis or pericarditis post-vaccination was challenged, citing a lack of acknowledgment of other studies and data.
A 25% increase in heart attacks or cardiac arrests among people aged 16 to 39 was associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, not COVID-19 itself.
The speaker expressed a conclusion that the COVID-19 vaccine introduction has had a net negative effect on the population and society.
The early strain of COVID-19 was particularly severe, especially for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and those with obesity.
The possibility that the original COVID-19 virus was human-engineered and likely leaked from a lab in Wuhan was discussed.
The importance of informed consent and the lack of transparency in the benefits and risks communicated to the public was emphasized.
The use of relative risk reduction in vaccine trials was criticized for misleading the public about the actual benefits of vaccination.
The need for transparency in the medical system to prevent similar situations in the future was highlighted.
The potential benefits of the vaccine for high-risk groups were acknowledged, but the overall strategy of vaccine rollout was questioned.
The impact of media and public figures in shaping the narrative around the vaccine and its effectiveness was discussed.
The role of commercial interests in the medical industry and their influence on the information disseminated to the public was criticized.
The importance of critically appraising evidence and the lack of such practices among medical professionals and policymakers was pointed out.
The speaker's personal experience with COVID-19 and the unusual symptoms experienced, differing from typical flu symptoms, was shared.
The potential mismanagement of COVID-19 patients in intensive care units, contributing to unnecessary deaths, was mentioned.
Transcripts
this is actually the the most crucial
and important piece of data on its own
which should have been enough to suspend
it and actually suggest that it probably
shouldn't have been rolled out in the
first place is that those trials that
were done by fiser and
madna which led to the all the media
reports 95 100% effective um you know
the approval by the regulator the roll
out the coercion the mandates they were
reanalyzed by some very eminent
scientists including the associated to
the bmj
the one of the world's top
epidemiologists and they published in
the journal vaccine which is the Premier
journal for vaccines and they were able
to get new data that was made available
on health Canada's website and the FDA
in America's website and what they did
in their reanalysis of the original high
quality clinical trials is they found
Steve you were more likely to suffer
serious harm from taking the vaccine at
a rate of 1 in 800 that meant
hospitalization disability or
life-changing event
then you were to be hospitalized with
covid and this is during the early phase
right this is during the mo the most
most lethal strain for all age groups
yes well absolutely well they put all
age groups together so on average in all
age groups that's a very good
question um but what's missing is that
actually okay is there a benefit that's
greater than harm in certain age groups
but we can indirectly answer that in a
second so that was original trial so on
average it was more harmful than
beneficial okay but even before talking
about all age groups Steve a 1 in 800
harm rate for a vaccine is completely
unacceptable in the sense that we have
pulled other vaccines in the past for
much less harm the swine flu vaccine was
suspended globally because it was found
to cause G and Barry syndrome a
debilitating neurological condition in
one in a 100,000 people Rota virus
vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it
was found to cause a form of battle
obstruction in children at one in 10,000
so you've already got a harm rate of
1800 irrespective of right so that first
and foremost should be a red flag to say
hold on this is this is too much when
they say harm rate how do they what's
the the range of definitions of harm
well in this one they categorize serious
harm as it caused you to be hospitalized
yeah it caused a disability okay or
something that was life-changing now of
course that can incorporate lots of
different things but of those and I
spoke to the lead researcher I know work
with him on other things um 40% of those
serious harms were actually related to
clotting disorders like lung clots heart
attacks Etc I want make sure I'm super
clear here cuz I don't understand um the
the data you're citing so you're saying
that they found one in 800 people would
have serious harm or harm uh serious
harm serious harm serious 1800 people in
the trials 1 in 800 yeah 1 in 800
serious harm right now just to give you
perspective so you can balance it out
just because this is important this a
question you've asked is really
important um we didn't have any good
good real world data at that point
on can we separate vaccinated from
unvaccinated to look at what the
hospitalization rate would be for covid
for example in people who took the
vaccine versus the people that didn't
according to age group that data in the
whole world the only country to get make
that data available was the UK and they
did that in the beginning of uh 2023 so
January last year and what did that show
after two doses of of the fiser vaccine
Steve if you were over 70 so this is the
highest risk group you had to vaccinate
2,500 people to prevent one person being
hospitalized with covid this was with
the different strain the Omnicom strain
because the original strain was yeah it
was they didn't yeah it was you're right
it was with the Omicron strain so that
was still but it gave us a ballpark
figure that even that so it's it's like
so say a patient comes to me and says
doc what are the benefits of this drug
is a prevention whatever else
and I say to them well if you take this
there's a one in 2,500 chance it will
help you prevent you being hospitalized
I'll be honest with you Steve I mean in
medicine in all the drugs I've used and
all the data I know about different
medications and heart disease Etc that
figure I mean it's a very serious issue
but that figure is a joke I mean there's
nothing of that of such poor and then
when you get under the a when you get to
people under the age of say uh 50 you're
talking about having to vaccinate maybe
several hundred thousand to prevent one
is that relevant for that the first
strain of CO as well because or do we
not have the data on that because we
don't have that data on that we do in my
paper which I published actually we did
have some data on Delta and if I
remember correctly the data on the over
70s the there's also problems with this
a little bit because it's not corrected
for other factors such as social
economics Etc risk factors of you might
make people more vulnerable so if I
remember correctly from that paper if
you're over 70 that was about 1 and 25
Delta was the worst strain actually so
about 1 and 25
okay I'm on the British Heart Foundation
website I'm sure you've read this um
just to read out what they say on there
it says that up to one in 10,000 people
with the fisa vaccine might experience
are at risk of M myocarditis or
pericarditis if I pronounced that
correctly yeah up to one in 10,000
people for the Mna vaccine and uh it's
not possible to estimate other vaccines
because they're not frequently used in
the UK all three of these covid-19
vaccines are RNA vaccines designed to
Target the omnicon Omnicom strain and at
the top of this it says the risk of
myocarditis or pericarditis after
covid-19 vaccine is very low how do you
respond to that do you think you agree
with that no I don't agree with it at
all I think there are a number of layers
to respond to this I think the first
thing to say Steve is the British heart
foundation with a greatest respect to
them and they do a lot of good work
overall is still part of the so-called
establishment which has been blinded for
years to actually even address address
so many issues on health when it doesn't
uh suit the interests of big farmer and
and and I can say that categorically
because I know one of the the the chief
advisor uh uh to heart disease um for
the British heart foundation with the
greatest respect to him is a guy called
Professor Rory Collins um at University
of Oxford and they have said similar
things when it comes to statin drugs
which we'll talk about later um but that
person the people who advise them are
people who are heav funded and linked to
Farmer taking their institution taking
hundreds of Millions for example so
there's a huge bias there to start with
that's the first thing but it for me
what the British Heart Foundation are
not doing is actually countering and i'
would love them to counter that because
I'm very open for the debate here is
that you've got a reanalysis of and they
know this the best way of determining
serious harm from any drug is actually
looking one of the best ways is the
highest quality level of evidence which
is the r rized control chars which is
where led to the approval when you've
got an independent reanalysis in a
peerreview journal saying more harm than
good from the beginning that in itself
and and then we look at real world data
Steve there's so many other bits of data
that they are ignoring basically to
answer your question they're ignoring
lots of other data which is very clear
whether it's autopsy data whether it's
other studies that came out of Israel
that showed for example this was
published in a journal called nature
scientific reports and again they ignore
this they don't talk about it so it's
it's like hold on guys this is you
you're ignoring you're not even
mentioning this data they showed and
this is really most disturbing in 2021
there was a 25% increase in heart
attacks and or cardiac arrests in people
aged between 16 and
39 which was associated with the covid
vaccine but not associated with covid do
you believe that if we hadn't have
introduced the vaccine more or less
people would have survived covid because
I've got close friends of mine that got
Co and I watched them go from very
healthy looking people to basically
skeletons good actually good friend one
of the serers of my company his dad went
from being a very healthy man to being
basically looking like a skeleton and
almost died and then I've got I know of
other people that did die so I think in
the grand scheme of things when we think
about um vaccines was it a net positive
that we had a vaccine there is from
everything I know now I have slowly and
reluctantly come to the conclusion
that the covid vaccine introduction has
had a
catastrophic overall net negative effect
on the population and society and one of
the and and let me just cave at this
because you've mentioned the fact that
people suffered from covid and I'm not
denying that I've got patients Steve
that I see that have had long covid that
weren't vaccinated okay and have
suffered quite
badly most of the most serious aspects
of covid
happened early on in 2020 and
predominantly affected the elderly we've
got all of that data now that's been
reanalyzed by one of the world's top
scientists and even Looking Back Now
essentially if you were under 70 even
from the beginning your risk of serious
harm from covid is in the ballpark
figure of the flu right and even I
actually was wrong I wrote an article in
European scientist in Mar in April 2020
because I actually initially started
making a lot of noise about why we not
talking about lifestyle with Co to help
people mitigate you know the IM improve
their immune system and I said you know
talking to um a friend of mine who works
in the busiest ER in America in in New
York who I've done work with and he said
to seem this is I've never seen anything
like this is devastating some of my
colleagues are dying so I have no doubt
that at the very beginning in the early
strain of the virus it was really bad
especially for vulnerable people people
with obesity Etc cuz even I I I remember
getting Co I was actually used to live
on the top floor of this building and I
remember I've never experienced anything
quite as bizarre as the symptom set that
I had when I got Co the fact that at
3:00 a.m. in the morning I don't take
medicine so fact 3: a.m. in the morning
I'm lying flat on my floor ordering
ibuprofen on Uber Eats because my back I
just had the most bizarre like back pain
and so I was having to like lie flat on
the floor because I couldn't even lie in
bed it was so bad and just this weird
set of symptoms that I'd never had
before my my partner she lost her smell
and taste and it was so unusual it was
so unusual um there's not been a time in
my lifetime that people have lost their
smell and taste on mass so when I when
it when you hear it compared to the flu
you go this was not the flu this is
something different yes no the symptoms
are very different and I think now it's
accepted um that um and we won't go into
a lot of detail in B but I think one of
the reasons as well it was human
engineered you know it almost certainly
the evidence points it being a lab leak
right so it had a very you're right it
was very different to any other virus
that used to be a conspiracy theory I
know right no it's not a conspiracy
theory I know it's funny yeah when you
hear about that lab in Wuhan that were
messing around with viruses and then we
we decided to put the blame on like a
market store but I think now the general
consensus is that it probably came from
that lab in Wuhan yeah absolutely
absolutely and I've spoken to in fact I
I spent time with actually the
scientists that first went public with
it who identified it um guy in America
sorry in Australia um so yeah that came
from Lab but so I think it had these
different strange things loss of smell
Etc but in terms of serious illness um
it was there at the beginning now when
you when you look back I think
essentially there were vulnerable
elderly but uh you know who who suffered
um especially people in nursing homes
with a lot of deaths there but there's
so many other components to this so one
is did we Institute the correct
treatments a lot of people were killed
because they weren't managed properly in
itu you know in terms of putting people
intubating them putting on respirators
when they didn't need it and that in
itself has a risk um some of the wrong
treatments were given there were other
treatments now that we look back that
probably would have been helpful things
like icin which I know has been a bit
controversial but um was very it's a
very safer than paracetamol right so
first Do no harm okay um but it may have
done some good and a lot of people and
doctors around the world that used it in
several thousand there's a doctor in
South Africa that used it in 14,000
patients including many elderly not a
single one died from Co and this is
early on so all these things that we
missed we missed a lifestyle
intervention so all those things are
there but by the time you get to the end
of 2020 the beginning of 2021 there are
so things that happen Steve that you
have to think about before you introduce
a vaccine one is what is the state of
the virus right now um and it already
mutated to some degree and become less
lethal there is natural immunity which
we know is very powerful right um and
but the issue with the vaccine is and
certainly it was probably there from the
beginning we know that when one looks at
the original trials there was a and this
is what the drug companies have doing
for a long long period of time they will
mislead people using statistics about
the benefits so you use something called
relative risk reduction let me just
explain this because you can apply this
to statins as well is they presented the
benefit as a 95% protection against
infection remember that figure 95% right
and it was what we call relative risk
reduction
so if you've got for example two groups
in a trial say 100 in one trial in in in
in one group and 100 another and let's
just say let's give you an example of
stat pns and you're you're following
them up over 5 years to look at a drug
to see if it benefits them in preventing
having a heart
attack in one group they get the dummy
pill um and you follow them over five
years and in the people that got the
dummy pill in fact you didn't do
anything different two of them suffered
a heart
attack in the other group the other
hundred people that were followed up
over 5 years who got the pill the the
drug right only one suffered a heart
attack so you've reduced the heart
attack Risk by 50% right two to one
right 50% but you've only prevented one
heart attack you've treated 100 people
but you've prevented one heart attack
out of treating 100 yeah does that make
sense so that's a 1% absolute benefit in
other words when you explain that to a
patient when I ask when I have engage in
sort of call informed consent Shar
decision- making when they ask me about
drug I'll say this gives you a 1% chance
if you take this drug religiously of
preventing a heart attack now you you
apply that to the original covid vaccine
trials which by the way have so many
other problems with them because even
those trials were conducted and analyzed
and designed by the drug industry I mean
this is one of the biggest myths that
needs to be busted Steve out there for
most doctors um as well as members of
the public medical knowledge is under
commercial control but most people don't
know that so what happens is they did
the trial but let's just talk about what
the results the their results showed us
a 95% relative risk reduction against
infection they didn't show any reduction
in uh covid death by the way in that
trial right they just said prevent from
infection but we then presume it may
then prevent right uh reduce death rates
the absolute risk reduction from
infection at the beginning was one was
0.84% one in
119 so that's how many people you need
to vaccinate to prevent one infection
which actually people were not told that
so imagine you're thinking should take
this vaccine say well Steve there's a
one less than 1% chance that it's going
to prevent you getting infected people
weren't told that but but that it then
reduce my chance of getting seriously
ill right no but we've then talked about
that haven't we like as in when you look
at the data certainly beginning of 2023
that was looking over the previous year
2022 you have to vaccinate 2,500 people
to prent one person getting serious heal
with covid right if you're over 70 with
the second St with the other strain with
the other strain and it may have been
better St you're right it may it
probably was better but it's still
numbers are still much smaller than what
people were led to believe and and by
the way Steve The
Narrative at the beginning they kept
changing the goalpost remember it wasn't
about preventing serious illness and
death it was all about preventing
infection you are not in America you've
seen it all over CNN Rachel madow and
she's saying it so passionately if you
take this vaccine you are not going to
get covid and calling anyone who who
questions it being a science deny I mean
Jesus Christ so my last question on that
before I I said what I was going to say
is um do you think there would have been
less deaths
overall if we hadn't have had a vaccine
yes you think there would have been less
deaths by now when you look at it so I
think over time so so where we are now
start um so if we hadn't have introduced
the vaccine for that first drain of Co
you think there'd be less deaths okay if
I was to I still think
that if okay this is very nuanced but
important if the vaccine had only been
offered to the high-risk people at the
beginning say the over 70s or people
with multiple risk factors I think there
is a case to be made right I'm going to
counter that in a minute though but
there is a case to be made that there
was overall benefit versus harm but
there's a problem one there wasn't true
informed consent right because those
figures those numbers weren't given to
people about the prevention of infection
Etc right um and two if you have an
average serious harm rate of 1 in 800
any scientist even Regulators would have
said hold on a minute this is way too
high this is too risky and this is by
the way Steve only the short term
because remember this vaccine didn't go
through what other vaccines have gone
through which is 5 to 10 years of safety
testing so if you throw all those
caveats in and use inform form consent I
can guarantee you with all of my
knowledge
expertise experience with patients when
you engage in these conversations most
of those elderly people will probably
still refused it but but but but yes I
think there is a case to be made that
the the benefits may have way outweighed
the Harms in those highrisk people at
the very beginning in the short term
absolutely you know when I think about
Rachel madow and what she said on TV
about you know that it's going to stop
the spread of infection Etc I can have a
degree of
empathy because if that's the
information you're being fed and you are
a public facing
broadcaster and it's being fed to you by
scientists and it's fed you by the NHS
and whoever else and you know very
credible people that you've been raised
to believe and to trust if you're a
public facing broadcaster what else are
you going to say you're not going to say
the opposite you're not you can't sit on
the fence your job is to broadcast it's
the news right so I I have and think you
did the same you said earlier you went
on Good Morning Britain or something and
said the same I'm and I'm not blaming
Rachel M here I'm just saying that the
indoctrination that came through the
mainstream media was so strong through
people like Rachel mad and why is that
important Steve I had a conversation
with the chairman of the British Medical
associ iation in December 2021 when I
was campaigning to overturn vaccine
mandates for healthcare workers he had
access to sad Javid I had a previous uh
rapport with Matt hanock but he had
obviously left by then um and I spoke to
his name is Shan nagul and I explained
him everything I knew about the vaccine
after looking at data at that point I
hadn't published at this point but I
went through it in in in in a logical
way chairman of the BMA by the way not
just some random person and he said aim
no one appears to critically apprais the
evidence on the vaccine as well as you
have from our to our chair most of my
colleagues who are in senior policy you
know medical position establishment
positions are getting their information
on the benefits and harms of the vaccine
from the BBC it's it's super difficult
isn't that extraordinary though I think
it's really difficult because if I if
you're dealing with lots of people
dying on mass and it's happened very
very quickly and people are just
dropping dead and you're seeing you know
hospitals being overrun
you've got
to you got to tread carefully with the
information you're putting out there so
if the scientific information comes in
early and maybe a little bit too too
soon before it's really been vetted and
triple checked saying one
thing and you're desperate for answers I
can I can see why a group of people
would say okay this is the best
information and then to go against that
information could potentially cause tons
of harm so I can also imagine why a
group of people would be really slow to
then change their mind away from that
cuz you dealing with like L Steve I was
that person too so I'm with you on that
100% I think where I'm taking this is
the system if it had been more
transparent early on and this is where
I've been you know banging my you know
head against a brick wall to some degree
for about a decade if there was more
transparency in the system we would have
had better information even from the
beginning but that information was kept
commercially confidential because of the
system that really is geared towards uh
supporting the interest of big farmer
not in the interest of people's health
and that and and if that and that's the
key Point here right this is we're
looking back over time thinking how did
this happen how do we allow this to
happen we need to go deeper say how do
we stop this happening again in the
future so we have better information if
you love the dver CEO brand and you
watch this Channel please do me a huge
favor become part of the 15% of the
viewers on this channel that have hit
the Subscribe button it helps us
tremendously and the bigger the channel
gets the bigger the
guests for
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
It’s Happening – THIS Is How The Next Pandemic Begins
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on COVID, Myocarditis, and Vaccines
Global excess deaths
Karim Suryadi - Ketika Demokrasi Tanpa Demos
Holy SMOKES! AstraZeneca JUST admitted the truth about its COVID vaccine | Redacted w Natali Morris
Introduction to Drug Development & Regulation
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)