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

The conversation delves into the reanalysis of Pfizer and Moderna vaccine trials, revealing concerning data that suggests a higher rate of serious harm (1 in 800) compared to the benefits, especially in younger age groups. Experts, including those associated with the BMJ, found that the trials, which led to widespread media claims of high efficacy, neglected significant risks. The discussion critiques the lack of transparency and informed consent, highlighting how the media and health authorities, influenced by pharmaceutical interests, failed to adequately inform the public about the vaccine's true risk-benefit profile.

• Eminent scientists reanalyzed the original high-quality clinical trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna.
• The reanalysis was published in the journal Vaccine.
• Data was obtained from Health Canada and the FDA websites.
• Findings indicated that individuals were more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine at a rate of 1 in 800 than to be hospitalized with COVID-19.

"Those trials that were done by Pfizer and Moderna, which led to all the media reports, 95-100% effective, the approval by the regulator, the rollout, the coercion, the mandates—they were reanalyzed by some very eminent scientists, including the associated to the BMJ, one of the world's top epidemiologists."

• Reanalysis by top scientists and epidemiologists challenges initial efficacy reports.

"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—than you were to be hospitalized with COVID."

• Serious harm rate from the vaccine was 1 in 800, which is higher than the hospitalization rate for COVID-19.

• Historical vaccine data shows that vaccines with much lower harm rates have been pulled from the market.
• Swine flu vaccine was suspended for causing Guillain-Barré syndrome at a rate of 1 in 100,000.
• Rotavirus vaccine was pulled in 1999 for causing bowel obstruction at a rate of 1 in 10,000.

"The swine flu vaccine was suspended globally because it was found to cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, a debilitating neurological condition, in one in 100,000 people."

• Swine flu vaccine was pulled for a harm rate significantly lower than 1 in 800.

"Rotavirus vaccine was pulled in 1999 because it was found to cause a form of bowel obstruction in children at one in 10,000."

• Rotavirus vaccine was pulled for a harm rate of 1 in 10,000.

• Serious harm was categorized as hospitalization, disability, or life-changing events.
• 40% of serious harms were related to clotting disorders such as lung clots and heart attacks.

"They categorize serious harm as it caused you to be hospitalized, it caused a disability, or something that was life-changing."

• Serious harm includes hospitalization, disability, or life-changing events.

"40% of those serious harms were actually related to clotting disorders like lung clots, heart attacks, etc."

• Significant portion of serious harms were related to clotting disorders.

• The UK was the only country to make real-world data available, starting in January 2023.
• For individuals over 70, 2,500 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent one hospitalization with COVID-19.
• The data was based on the Omicron strain, which provided a ballpark figure for vaccine efficacy.

"The only country to make that data available was the UK, and they did that in the beginning of 2023."

• UK provided real-world data starting in January 2023.

"After two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, Steve, if you were over 70, you had to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one person being hospitalized with COVID."

• For those over 70, 2,500 vaccinations were needed to prevent one hospitalization.

• For individuals under 50, several hundred thousand need to be vaccinated to prevent one hospitalization.
• Data on earlier strains like Delta showed different efficacy rates.
• For the Delta strain, 1 in 25 over 70s needed to be vaccinated to prevent one hospitalization.

"When you get to people under the age of, say, 50, you're talking about having to vaccinate maybe several hundred thousand to prevent one."

• Vaccine efficacy is significantly lower in younger age groups.

"If I remember correctly from that paper, if you're over 70, that was about 1 in 25. Delta was the worst strain, actually, so about 1 in 25."

• For the Delta strain, 1 in 25 over 70s needed to be vaccinated to prevent one hospitalization.

• British Heart Foundation states that up to 1 in 10,000 people with the Pfizer vaccine might experience myocarditis or pericarditis.
• These conditions are more difficult to estimate for other vaccines not frequently used in the UK.
• All three COVID-19 vaccines discussed are RNA vaccines targeting the Omicron strain.

"Up to 1 in 10,000 people with the Pfizer vaccine might experience myocarditis or pericarditis."

• Risk of myocarditis or pericarditis with Pfizer vaccine is up to 1 in 10,000.

"All three of these COVID-19 vaccines are RNA vaccines designed to target the Omicron strain."

• All discussed vaccines are RNA vaccines targeting the Omicron strain.

• The British Heart Foundation is viewed as part of the medical establishment influenced by pharmaceutical interests.
• There is a perceived bias due to significant funding from pharmaceutical companies.
• The British Heart Foundation allegedly ignores data that contradicts their stance on vaccine safety.

"The British Heart Foundation, with the greatest respect to them, is still part of the so-called establishment which has been blinded for years to actually even address so many issues on health when it doesn't suit the interests of big pharma."

• The speaker believes the British Heart Foundation is influenced by pharmaceutical companies and does not address all health issues impartially.

"The people who advise them are people who are heavily funded and linked to pharma, taking their institution taking hundreds of millions, for example."

• There is an assertion that advisors to the British Heart Foundation have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, leading to potential bias.

"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... the highest quality level of evidence which is the randomized control trials."

• The speaker challenges the British Heart Foundation to address evidence from randomized control trials that suggest more harm than good from the vaccine.

• The British Heart Foundation is accused of ignoring various types of data suggesting vaccine harm.
• Autopsy data and studies from Israel indicate a significant increase in cardiac events post-vaccination.
• A specific study in "Nature Scientific Reports" highlighted a 25% increase in heart attacks and cardiac arrests in young adults in 2021.

"They are ignoring lots of other data which is very clear, whether it's autopsy data, whether it's other studies that came out of Israel."

• The speaker claims that critical data showing vaccine-related harms are being ignored by the British Heart Foundation.

"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."

• A specific statistic is cited to illustrate the increase in cardiac events linked to the vaccine, emphasizing the need for acknowledgment by health authorities.

• The speaker concludes that the overall net effect of the COVID-19 vaccine has been negative.
• There is an acknowledgment of the severity of COVID-19, particularly in the early stages and among vulnerable populations.
• The initial perception of COVID-19 as extremely severe influenced early support for vaccines.

"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."

• The speaker expresses a reluctant but firm belief that the vaccine has had more negative than positive effects overall.

"Most of the most serious aspects of COVID happened early on in 2020 and predominantly affected the elderly."

• The speaker notes that the most severe impacts of COVID-19 were seen early in the pandemic and mainly affected older individuals.

"If you were under 70, even from the beginning, your risk of serious harm from COVID is in the ballpark figure of the flu."

• The risk of severe harm from COVID-19 for those under 70 is compared to the flu, suggesting it may not have warranted the same level of intervention.

• Personal anecdotes highlight the unusual and severe symptoms of COVID-19.
• The speaker had a severe back pain episode and other unusual symptoms.
• The partner of the speaker experienced loss of smell and taste, which was highly unusual.

"I remember I've never experienced anything quite as bizarre as the symptom set that I had when I got COVID."

• The speaker describes personal symptoms of COVID-19 as highly unusual and severe.

"My partner, she lost her smell and taste, and it was so unusual."

• The loss of smell and taste experienced by the speaker's partner is highlighted as an uncommon and notable symptom.

• The speaker suggests that COVID-19 was likely human-engineered and originated from a lab leak.
• This hypothesis is used to explain the unusual nature of the virus and its symptoms.

"One of the reasons as well, it was human-engineered; almost certainly the evidence points to it being a lab leak."

• The speaker believes that the unique characteristics of COVID-19 can be attributed to its likely lab-engineered origin.

"It was very different to any other."

• The unusual symptoms and characteristics of COVID-19 are attributed to its potential lab origin.

• Initial suspicions about the origins of COVID-19 being from a lab in Wuhan.
• Early public statements by scientists about the lab origin theory.
• Initial severe symptoms and vulnerabilities, particularly among the elderly and those in nursing homes.
• Mismanagement of treatments in Intensive Therapy Units (ITUs), including unnecessary intubation and use of respirators.

"When you hear about that lab in Wuhan that were messing around with viruses and then 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."

• The speaker suggests that the consensus has shifted towards the virus originating from a lab in Wuhan.

"I spent time with actually the scientists that first went public with it who identified it."

• The speaker has direct contact with scientists who initially identified the virus's lab origins.

"In terms of serious illness, it was there at the beginning...essentially there were vulnerable elderly who suffered, especially people in nursing homes with a lot of deaths there."

• Early on, severe illness was predominantly seen in vulnerable elderly populations, especially in nursing homes.

• Incorrect treatments in ITUs led to higher mortality.
• Use of intubation and respirators when not needed posed additional risks.
• Controversial treatments like Ivermectin, which some claim were safer and potentially beneficial.

"A lot of people were killed because they weren't managed properly in ITU, in terms of putting people intubating them, putting on respirators when they didn't need it and that in itself has a risk."

• Mismanagement in ITUs, including unnecessary intubation, led to increased mortality.

"There were other treatments now that we look back that probably would have been helpful, things like Ivermectin."

• Retrospective analysis suggests that treatments like Ivermectin might have been beneficial.

• Consideration of the virus's state before introducing vaccines.
• Natural immunity's role and its comparison to vaccine-induced immunity.
• Misleading statistics by drug companies using relative risk reduction.
• Absolute risk reduction and its implications for patient consent.

"By the time you get to the end of 2020, the beginning of 2021, there are so things that happen before you introduce a vaccine."

• Timing and context were crucial before vaccine introduction.

"Natural immunity which we know is very powerful."

• Natural immunity is acknowledged as highly effective.

"They presented the benefit as a 95% protection against infection...what we call relative risk reduction."

• Drug companies used relative risk reduction to present vaccine efficacy.

"The absolute risk reduction from infection at the beginning was 0.84%."

• Absolute risk reduction was much lower than what was presented to the public.

• Medical knowledge under commercial control.
• Trials conducted and analyzed by the drug industry.
• Public and medical community misled about vaccine efficacy and necessity.

"Medical knowledge is under commercial control but most people don't know that."

• Commercial interests heavily influence medical knowledge and public perception.

"They did the trial but let's just talk about what the results showed us a 95% relative risk reduction against infection."

• Trials showed relative risk reduction but did not adequately communicate absolute risk reduction.

"You have to vaccinate 2,500 people to prevent one person from getting seriously ill with COVID if you're over 70 with the second strain."

• The number needed to vaccinate to prevent severe illness was much higher than implied.

• The initial public messaging around COVID-19 vaccines emphasized their ability to prevent infection.
• High-profile media figures like Rachel Maddow passionately promoted the idea that vaccination would prevent COVID-19, contributing to a narrative that questioned dissenters' credibility.
• The discussion raises questions about whether fewer deaths would have occurred without the vaccine, focusing on the nuances of vaccine distribution and informed consent.

"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 that there was overall benefit versus harm."

• The speaker suggests that targeted vaccination for high-risk groups could have balanced benefits and harms more effectively.

"There wasn't true informed consent because those figures, those numbers weren't given to people about the prevention of infection, etc."

• Informed consent was compromised as the public was not fully apprised of the vaccine's capabilities and risks.

"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.'"

• The speaker highlights the risk factor of the vaccine, questioning its deployment without thorough long-term safety testing.

• Media figures like Rachel Maddow played a significant role in shaping public perception due to the information provided by credible sources.
• There is empathy towards media figures who were broadcasting information fed to them by trusted scientific and health institutions.

"I can have a degree of empathy because if that's the information you're being fed and you are a public-facing broadcaster, what else are you going to say?"

• The speaker understands the position of media figures who disseminated the information they were given.

"The indoctrination that came through the mainstream media was so strong through people like Rachel Maddow."

• The speaker notes the powerful influence of mainstream media in shaping public opinion and behavior regarding the vaccine.

• The lack of transparency in the healthcare system and the influence of commercial interests over public health is a critical issue.
• The speaker discusses efforts to overturn vaccine mandates for healthcare workers and the challenges faced in promoting transparency.

"If the system had been more transparent early on, we would have had better information even from the beginning."

• Greater transparency from the outset could have provided more accurate and reliable information.

"That information was kept commercially confidential because of the system that really is geared towards supporting the interest of big pharma, not in the interest of people's health."

• The speaker criticizes the healthcare system for prioritizing commercial interests over public health.

"We need to go deeper and say, how do we stop this happening again in the future so we have better information?"

• The speaker calls for systemic changes to prevent future issues and ensure better information dissemination.

• Decision-makers faced difficult choices with limited information during the pandemic, impacting public health policies.
• The urgency and scale of the pandemic led to rapid decisions that were sometimes based on incomplete or preliminary data.

"It's really difficult because if you're dealing with lots of people dying en masse and it's happened very quickly, you've got to tread carefully with the information you're putting out there."

• The speaker acknowledges the complexity and urgency faced by policymakers during the pandemic.

"If the scientific information comes in early and maybe a little bit too soon before it's really been vetted and triple-checked, and you're desperate for answers, I can see why a group of people would say, 'Okay, this is the best information.'"

• Early scientific information, even if not fully vetted, was sometimes the best available guidance for decision-makers.

"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."

• The hesitancy to change established guidance is understandable given the potential consequences of misinformation.

• The speaker recounts a conversation with the chairman of the British Medical Association about overturning vaccine mandates for healthcare workers.
• The discussion highlighted the reliance on mainstream media for information even among senior medical professionals.

"I spoke to his name is Shan Nagul, and I explained to him everything I knew about the vaccine after looking at data at that point."

• The speaker engaged in detailed discussions with senior medical figures to address vaccine mandate issues.

"Most of my colleagues who are in senior policy, medical position establishment positions are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC."

• Even senior medical professionals were relying on mainstream media for their information, underscoring the media's influence and the need for better information channels.