“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.

Outlines

00:00

🚨 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.

05:01

🔍 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.

10:01

🦠 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.

15:01

📊 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.

20:02

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡Vaccine Trials

Vaccine trials refer to the scientific studies conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaccines. In the context of the video, the trials done by Pfizer and Moderna were mentioned as crucial for the vaccine's approval and rollout. The script discusses the reanalysis of these trials by eminent scientists, which led to concerns about the vaccine's safety profile.

💡Efficacy

Efficacy is the measure of how well a treatment works under ideal conditions, often assessed in clinical trials. The video mentions media reports and regulatory approvals based on high efficacy rates of 95-100% for COVID-19 vaccines, which were later questioned in the reanalysis discussed in the script.

💡Harm Rate

Harm rate indicates the frequency of adverse effects or serious harm caused by a treatment or vaccine. The script cites a reanalysis showing a 1 in 800 harm rate for the vaccine, suggesting a higher risk of serious harm than the risk of hospitalization due to COVID-19, especially during the early phase of the pandemic.

💡Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

Serious adverse events are untoward medical occurrences that result in serious consequences such as hospitalization, disability, or life-threatening conditions. The video discusses the high rate of SAEs associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, with 40% of these events related to clotting disorders.

💡Relative Risk Reduction (RRR)

Relative risk reduction is a statistical measure that represents the proportionate reduction in risk of an event in the treated group compared to the untreated group. The script criticizes the use of RRR in vaccine trials, as it can exaggerate the benefits of a treatment by not reflecting the actual number of people needed to treat for one additional benefit.

💡Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)

Absolute risk reduction is the difference between the event rates in the control group and the treatment group, expressed as a percentage. The video emphasizes the importance of ARR in understanding the true benefit of a vaccine, as opposed to the often exaggerated figures presented by relative risk reduction.

💡Myocarditis

Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle that can be caused by various factors, including viral infections or immunizations. The script mentions the British Heart Foundation's statement on the low risk of myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination, a claim that the speaker disputes based on reanalysis and real-world data.

💡Vaccine Mandates

Vaccine mandates are policies requiring individuals to be vaccinated against certain diseases. The video discusses the controversy surrounding vaccine mandates, particularly for healthcare workers, and the speaker's involvement in campaigns to overturn such mandates.

💡Long COVID

Long COVID refers to a range of symptoms that persist for weeks or months after the acute phase of COVID-19 has resolved. The script acknowledges the existence of long COVID in unvaccinated individuals and the suffering it can cause, while also discussing the potential harms of the vaccine.

💡Lab Leak Theory

The lab leak theory posits that the COVID-19 virus originated from a laboratory, possibly due to an accidental release of the virus. The video references the increasing consensus among experts that the virus likely originated from a lab in Wuhan, which was initially dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

💡Informed Consent

Informed consent is the process of providing patients with the necessary information to make an educated decision about their medical treatment or participation in a clinical trial. The script argues that true informed consent was not provided for the COVID-19 vaccine, as the potential risks and benefits were not adequately communicated.

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