ER Editor: We feel this is continuing the narrative of honest docs being terrorized by the ‘system’. We have in mind Dr. William Makis, formerly of Alberta who has moved to Florida; Dr. David Cartland in the UK, who is fighting no end of ridiculous discrimination, down to not being able to referee a football match in his spare time; even up to lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, &etc. There are other doctors, but their names escape us. We feel that while these doctors may be under serious pressure, somewhere this is being done to wake up the masses.
********
Dr Aseem Malhotra: I’m Fighting for My Medical Licence After Blowing the Whistle on Covid Vaccines
WILL JONES for DAILY SCEPTIC
Six months later, my father suddenly died, aged 73.
Dr Kailash Chand – who was a disciplined, active and honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association – suffered a cardiac arrest. His post-mortem revealed severe coronary artery disease that had progressed far more rapidly than I would have expected, given earlier heart scans and how healthy he was.
At first, I rejected any suggestion of a vaccine link outright. But by late 2021, emerging real-world data raised legitimate scientific questions. Protection against infection from Covid appeared to wane rapidly. Countries with high vaccination rates were experiencing significant case surges. At the same time, reports of heart inflammation and other heart-related problems were appearing in drug safety databases.
In October 2021, a paper published in the journal, Circulation, reported raised levels of inflammation in the blood – markers linked to heart attacks – in a group of patients after they received a Pfizer or Moderna Covid mRNA vaccine. Although the study was small and not designed to prove cause and effect, it suggested a possible explanation – that the vaccine could trigger inflammation that affects the lining of the blood vessels.
These issues intensified my scrutiny of the original trial data.
In August 2022, a peer-reviewed re-analysis of serious adverse events from the pivotal Pfizer and Moderna randomised controlled trials was published in the journal Vaccine. Using data originally submitted to the US regulator, eminent independent researchers calculated that one was two to four times more likely to suffer a serious side effect from the vaccine (at a rate of one in 800) than be hospitalised with Covid without a vaccine. A similar figure was arrived at through real-world evidence in Norway. Around 40% of those serious events involved complications related to blood clotting.
For a medical intervention administered to healthy individuals on a mass scale, that safety signal warranted serious public debate.
For comparison, the 1976 US swine flu vaccine was stopped after it was linked to a serious neurological condition in about one in 100,000 people. In 1999, an early rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn after it was found to cause a bowel complication in about one in 10,000 children. These examples show why the level of risk matters when judging vaccine safety.
I compiled my analysis into a two-part, 10,000-word paper published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022. It underwent extensive peer review and remains the most downloaded paper in the journal’s history.
The professional consequences were immediate.
Complaints were submitted to the Royal College of Physicians, and my fellowship was suspended following anonymous allegations that my public comments had brought the College into disrepute. It was a sobering moment in my career, particularly as I believed I was acting in accordance with my professional duty to raise legitimate safety concerns.
Shortly afterwards, the General Medical Council (GMC) received complaints about my conduct. In essence, the accusation is that by scrutinising the data and raising legitimate questions in public (including on social media), I have undermined trust in vaccination, and therefore, in the medical profession itself.
But the arguments made by my critics rest on a dangerous premise – that trust is maintained by silence rather than transparency.
Everything I have said has been grounded in published, peer-reviewed evidence. The re-analysis of trial data was published in Vaccine. My own paper underwent peer review. The cardiovascular safety signals were reported in established medical journals. I have not advised patients to refuse routine immunisation. I have not discouraged uptake of established childhood vaccines. I have consistently stated that my concerns relate specifically to the risk-benefit profile and policy decisions surrounding Covid mRNA vaccines.
If raising documented safety signals and calling for further investigation constitutes ‘misinformation’, then we are redefining scientific debate as misconduct.
The GMC’s guidance makes clear that doctors must take action if they believe patient safety is at risk. That is precisely what I have done. To discipline a doctor for scrutinising pharmaceutical data sets a precedent that should concern every clinician in Britain – not because they agree with me, but because next time it may be them.
The GMC is currently examining the case against Aseem and he is waiting to hear whether it will decide to take formal action against him.
Worth reading in full.
Source
Featured image source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/11/reform-uk-doctor-aseem-malhotra-vaccine-claims-gmc
************
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply