“We Have Been LIED TO...” The Dr Banned For Speaking Out | Dr Aseem Malhotra

Summary

The 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.