A highly respected cardiologist and expert in evidence-based medicine was prompted to take a critical look at the vaccine data after the unexpected death of his father 6 months after vaccination. He spent 6 months carefully studying the data and consulting with other top scientists. He’s now calling for a halt to the vaccines based on the data.
Check out this story in the Epoch Times about Dr. Aseem Malhotra and the 547 comments:
Here’s the short story:
Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a well known, highly respected British cardiologist and evidence-based medicine expert. He promoted the COVID vaccines on British TV, even appearing on “Good Morning Britain” to advise Indian film director Gurinder Chadha to get the shot.
He started doing research on the vaccine after the suspicious death of his father who died after getting the vaccine, and found the connection. Two of his father’s major arteries were severely blocked, even though Malhotra described his father as a fit person who did not have any significant heart problems.
His father died 6 months after getting dose 2 of the Pfizer vaccine. This is totally consistent with the 5 month average delay time for massive clots appearing after getting the COVID vaccines. This is what the embalmers found as well: the large clots only started appearing in mid-2021.
Aseem spent 6 months looking at data critically including talking with other top scientists. He “slowly and reluctantly” came to the conclusion he was wrong about the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines. His journey was documented in his first paper. He mentions he teaches evidence-based medicine and follows all the principles.
In January, 2022, he started writing up what he found.
On Sept 26, 2022 the two papers he wrote, calling for a halt to the COVID vaccines, were published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
He told the Epoch Times, “There is more than enough evidence—I would say the evidence is overwhelming—to pause the rollout of the vaccine.”
Nobody has attacked any of the facts he used as a basis for the conclusion in his paper.
He has no conflicts of interest that would cause him to “switch sides”
They can’t attack him on his motivation or his facts. The paper was peer-reviewed for 3 months.
At the press conference to announce his papers and change of heart, only GB News attended. This was the same news organization that was the only major news organization to cover the Israeli safety data coverup.
A doctor who promoted COVID-19 vaccines is now calling for health authorities around the world to pause administration of two of the most-widely utilized COVID-19 vaccines, asserting that the benefits from the vaccines may not outweigh the risks.
“There is more than enough evidence—I would say the evidence is overwhelming—to pause the rollout of the vaccine,” Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist and evidence-based medicine expert, told The Epoch Times.
A paper from Malhotra was published on Sept. 26 detailing the evidence.
Dr. Malhotra notified me of the press release and paper on Saturday, but I’ve been a bit backed up.
Here are links to the two papers he wrote that are now published in a peer-reviewed medical journal:
Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine (Part 1 and Part 2).
These papers, both published on Sept 26, 2022, talk about how we got it wrong, why we got it wrong, and solutions.
The papers start by stating vaccines are safe (which I would disagree with) and that Dr. Malhotra was one of the first people to get vaccinated with Pfizer when the vaccines became available. He writes, “the main reason I took the jab was to prevent transmission of the virus to my vulnerable patients.”
So he was totally blue pilled when he got injected.
The papers conclude:
There is a strong scientific, ethical and moral case to be made that the current COVID vaccine administration must stop until all the raw data has been subjected to fully independent scrutiny. Looking to the future the medical and public health professions must recognise these failings and eschew the tainted dollar of the medical-industrial complex. It will take a lot of time and effort to rebuild trust in these institutions, but the health – of both humanity and the medical profession – depends on it.
and
It cannot be said that the consent to receive these agents was fully informed, as is required ethically and legally. A pause and reappraisal of global vaccination policies for COVID-19 is long overdue.
Only GB News attended. It was ignored by all the world’s mainstream press. Read this excellent writeup by Dr. Tess Lawrie who was very disappointed that there was no coverage of this important paper by a former vaccine advocate:
Here are a few things you might find interesting:
I asked how many journals refused to publish his papers. The surprising answer is zero. He simply submitted the papers to one of the very few medical journals with no ties to big pharma and no advertising and would take a paper of 10,000 words.
It was split into two articles because the journal has a size limit for a single article.
He started working on the paper 9 months ago.
After a 3 month double blind peer-review, the papers were accepted.
“Leading scientists say the new paper is important.” (from the Epoch Times article).
His peers mostly reacted with support, some privately. He wrote to me, “No overt criticism.”
After the new paper was published, critics noted that Malhotra is a board member of the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This makes sense. If you can’t argue the fact, attack the person. He is a member of the board, but there are strict rules about how such papers are handled by journals.
Dr. Campbell Murdoch, who advises the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that the study “describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicine,” and that the situation has made it “impossible for patients and the public to make an informed choice about what is best for their health and life.”
Some others criticized the paper, including Dr. Victoria Male, an immunologist at Imperial College London. Male wrote on Twitter that Table 2 in part 1 which outlines the number of people in each age group estimated to need a vaccination to prevent a COVID-19 death “is quite in favour of vaccination.” But the problem is that estimate is based on the UK government data which miscategorized deaths. The actual Pfizer Phase 3 trial, where the vaccine was a closer match to the variant circulating, was that the drug may have saved 1 life per 22,000 people vaccinated. And the paper itself warns that the estimates in Table 2 are likely to be inaccurate.
The British Society of Immunology said in response to the paper: “The safety and effectiveness assessments of all medicines and vaccines should be based on robust analysis of the evidence. This is the gold standard of healthcare research and is the high-quality analysis the public deserves to allow them to make evidence-based decisions about their health. Unfortunately, this paper does not thoroughly analyse all the available evidence and contains many narrative reflections. While individual case studies can be emotive, to understand the full picture, we must undertake robust evaluation examining the response from large numbers of people to be accurately able to assess the benefits and risks of any medical intervention. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been available for almost two years and many millions of doses have been given to people in the UK and around the world. Both in the initial clinical trials and throughout this rollout period, many researchers and health agencies have been carefully analysing the ongoing effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.” Oh really? Let’s take the Israeli government for example. They didn’t monitor for safety for a year and after they did, they hid the safety results. See the Israeli safety data coverup which the British Society of Immunology conveniently ignores despite calling for looking at all the available evidence. How do they explain those results? Or take our own CDC who can’t get their story straight as to whether they were analyzing the VAERS data or not. They’ve switched their stories so many times I can’t keep track of it. Pfizer’s own Phase 3 trial showed more people died in the vaccine group than the placebo group. Should we ignore that? Where are the post market studies comparing all-cause mortality and morbidity? Wayne Root did his own personal study of this since nobody else did and what he found was inexplicable if the vaccines are safe. Shouldn’t we include that anecdotal evidence? How can anyone explain that? I did my own with statistics from 600 people and they matched what Wayne found: the vaccines are unsafe. Or how about the polls I did? Or the huge diversity of evidence summarized in this article? Should we ignore all of that evidence which is all counter-narrative? Should we ignore the fact that nobody in the medical community was curious enough to want to see the Israeli safety data? Dr. Paul Offit didn’t want to see it. CDC outside committee chair Grace Lee didn’t want to see it. But Professor Martin Kulldorff wanted to see it and he’s not even on the CDC and FDA committees anymore. The British Society needs to explain why scientists do not want to see any data that goes against their belief system. Is that how science works nowadays? Are they proud of that?
Nobody else will cover this except GB News.
Mark Steyn interview (16 minutes; August 16, 2022). Aseem relates that the authorities were shocked to learn what he had found (which they should have known).
Dan Wootton interview (9 minutes; Sept 26, 2022). The best part was at the end where Pfizer refused to comment, and the MHRA said in response the narrative that “vaccines are the best way to protect people from COVID-19.” They refused to address anything in the papers.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra is a hero. When he learned he was wrong, he did the right thing: publicly admitted his mistake and called for the halt to the vaccines.
He was publicly advocating for the vaccines and he himself is double jabbed with the COVID vaccines. When a personal event made him question what he had been told, he spent 6 months looking at the data and publicly admitted he was wrong. He did this at considerable risk to his reputation.
He’s the type of doctor that the authorities and the medical community should be listening to. Instead they are trying to silence and discredit him and his work. They should be ashamed of their actions. History will not be kind to them.
The truth will eventually come out. Those who stonewall the inevitable will suffer the consequences.
