“There is more than enough evidence, I would say overwhelming evidence, to stop the rollout of the vaccine,” Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist and expert in evidence-based medicine, told The Epoch Times.
An article by Malhotra detailing the evidence was published on 26 September.
Among the citations is a recent reanalysis of clinical trials by Pfizer and Moderna that concluded that vaccinated trial participants were at greater risk of serious adverse events. He called the study a “smoking gun.”
Malhotra also noted the lack of reduction in mortality or serious illness in the trials, which were completed in 2020.
Taking into account death rates and other figures since then, the number of people who need to be vaccinated to prevent a single death from COVID-19 ranges from 93,000 for 18-29 year olds to 230 for people aged 80 and over, according to one analysis. of UK safety and efficacy data by the Health Recovery and Advisory Team.
The author also noted that serious side effects, including myocarditis, a form of inflammation of the heart, have been detected after the trials.
Overall, given the absolute benefits and drawbacks of vaccines, it is time to stop their use and allow authorities and other experts to take a close look at the data to see if vaccines should be used again in the future, according to Malhotra.
The paper was published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in two parts after peer review.
Pfizer and Moderna did not return requests for comment.
Revocation of opinion
Malhotra received the primary series from Pfizer in January 2021. He became a promoter of the vaccine, even appearing on “Good Morning Britain” to advise Indian film director Gurinder Chadha to get vaccinated. Chadha did so soon after.
Malhotra said she began researching the vaccine data after her father, Dr. Kailash Chand, went into cardiac arrest at home about six months after receiving the Pfizer vaccine.
The autopsy showed that two of Chand’s major arteries were severely blocked, although Malhotra described his father as a fit person who had no significant heart problems.
Malhotra began reading about post-vaccination issues, including a study summary in the journal Circulation that identified a higher risk of heart attack after vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and a study from the Nordic countries that identified a higher risk of myocarditis.
Although authorities have claimed that myocarditis is more common after COVID-19 than vaccination, many studies have found the opposite, at least for certain age groups. Some papers have found no increased incidence of heart inflammation for patients with COVID-19.
Malhotra has come to believe that his father’s death was related to the vaccine.
“I have always approached medicine and science with uncertainties because things are constantly evolving. And the information I had at that time is completely different than what I have now,” Malhotra told The Epoch Times. “And it’s actually my duty and responsibility, since the information has changed, to act on that information . And that’s what I’m doing.”
Response to criticism
After the new paper was published, critics pointed out that Malhotra is a board member of the Journal of Insulin Resistance.
He acknowledged the position, but said the article went through an independent peer review process and has no financial ties to the journal.
The doctor encouraged people to look at his publication history, which includes articles in the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
He said he chose to submit the paper to the journal Insulin for several reasons, including being “one of the few journals that doesn’t take money from the pharmaceutical industry.”
“I don’t think there’s any validity to questioning the integrity of the piece,” he said. “People can argue that I have an intellectual bias. We all have intellectual biases, but there’s certainly no financial bias for me.”
Paper earnings support
Top scientists say the new paper is important.
“We fully believe that vaccines are one of the great discoveries in medicine that have dramatically improved life expectancy, however, gene mRNA vaccines are different in that there is no long-term safety evaluation but it is mandatory to ensure public safety,” Sherif Sultan, president of the International Society for Vascular Surgery, said in a statement.
Sultan also noted that the findings “raise concerns about undetected vaccine-induced serious cardiovascular side effects and underscore the established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a common cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University, said Malhotra “makes a good case that there is considerable heterogeneity between age groups and other comorbid conditions in expected benefits and effect profiles expected side effects of the vaccine”. and “finds that while there may be a case for older people to get the vaccine because the benefits may outweigh the expected harm, that may not be the case for younger people.”
Dr Campbell Murdoch, who advises the Royal College of General Practitioners, said the study “describes multiple systemic failures in the provision of safe and effective evidence-based medicines” and that the situation has made it “impossible for patients and the public make a decision.” 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 the document’s table outlining the number of people in each age group estimated to need a vaccination to prevent a death from COVID-19 “is strongly pro-vaccination.”