Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion

Commentary

The phrase “safe and effective” accompanied a mass vaccination campaign throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. An Oracle Films Production, available on EpochTV, examines the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. It follows the emotional testimonies of vaccine-injured adults and exposes the unethical tactics employed by the media and big tech to encourage vaccination uptake and censor opposing narratives.

The film “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” provides the other side of the story. Using facts, real-world data, and expert opinions and analysis, it is a must-watch for those desiring to be truthfully informed about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Emotional Testimonies

Although the COVID vaccine was heralded as a success, there is growing evidence that the shot can have devastating consequences. Personal testimony from those in the vaccine-injured community reveals many feeling abandoned by the NHS and government they once trusted.

“You take one for the team, so I took the vaccine, but now the team is running in the opposite direction,” said one vaccine-injured person. Another man said through tears, “Just let people know that, when it goes wrong, there’s no help at all.”

This group has had to band together to support one another through physical and emotional trauma. Side effects such as slurred speech, chest pain, seizures, heart disease, inability to walk, loss of limb function, and more have changed their lives permanently.

Doctors Sound the Alarm

An influential figure in the medical community and a consultant cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, says after being double vaccinated and one of the first to take the Pfizer vaccine, “I have, after several months of critically appraising the data, speaking to eminent scientists at Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, speaking to two investigative medical journalists, and being contacted by two Pfizer whistleblowers, reluctantly concluded that this vaccine is not completely safe and has unprecedented harms which leads me to conclude that it needs to be suspended until all the raw data has been released for independent analysis.”

He is not alone. Many more international scientists have also sounded the alarm. Millions of COVID vaccine injuries and thousands of deaths have been reported through official channels worldwide. Now, governments are accused of covering up the data and the media of telling only one side of the story.

How Rare Are Adverse Events?

In the UK, adverse events are reported to the MHRA database. As of Aug. 24, the MHRA shows 432,819 alleged adverse reactions and 2,240 deaths. The government website for reporting vaccine adverse events in the United States, the VAERS database, has recorded 1,400,350 alleged adverse events and 30,796 deaths as of Sept. 2. Although not all these reports will be confirmed as vaccine-induced, not all reactions are reported. In fact, data reveals that adverse events are largely underreported.

Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist, calls it a “scandal of such epic proportions,” saying that it is “frightening to even approach it.” Craig explains that the COVID vaccine “is different technology” than traditional vaccines, noting that it “doesn’t prevent the illness.”

Dr. Aseem Malhotra says that the spike protein, which they initially believed would remain localized to the arm, appears to be distributed throughout the body after vaccination, found in every major organ system several months after, “causing either a direct reaction through toxicity or an autoimmune reaction. That is the most likely explanation behind the mechanism of harm from the mRNA products.”

Rushed Vaccine, No Liability

Development of the shot was done at warp speed, so much so that governments had to indemnify drug companies from injury claims. When the Pfizer vaccine reported efficacy at 95 percent on Nov. 18, 2020, governments gave the green light. However, Dr. Malhotra argues that the methodology used to report this efficacy rate was flawed. Relative risk reduction exaggerates the benefits of a medical intervention, which he notes would serve the interests of someone trying to sell something. Absolute risk reduction, however, shows how many lives are saved versus lost. To only share relative risk is considered unethical in medicine, yet, that is what was done with the COVID vaccines.

According to Pfizer trials, the relative risk reduction was 95 percent, while the absolute risk reduction was 0.84 percent. This means the vaccination only provided a 1 in 119 chance of improving COVID-19 outcomes. “So, we were basically sold on something that ultimately, in retrospect now, was very very misleading.”

The FDA initially locked away trial data for 75 years while the vaccines were being rolled out. After a court finally ordered their release, Alexandria Latypova, a research specialist in clinical trials, was one in a group of experts who examined the vaccine clinical trial data. Her assessment concluded that “Pfizer skipped major categories of safety testing altogether. The toxicity of the COVID-19 vaccine’s mRNA active ingredient was never studied.”

Latypova said the FDA and Pfizer knew about significant toxicities associated with gene therapy medicine and that the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer lied about the vaccine staying in the injection site. Her examination of leaked Moderna documents also revealed that vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease was identified as a serious risk.

Did the COVID Vaccine Save Lives?

Pharmaceutical companies and health agencies decline to comment on adverse events and prefer to point to the 20 million lives the vaccines have allegedly saved. Dr. Malhotra calls this statistic “science fiction, not scientific fact.” He explains this claim is based on “a very poor quality observational study” and that a higher quality level of evidence does “not show any reduction in COVID mortality of statistical significance” and “no reduction in all-cause mortality.” He concluded that “really, this statement is almost implausible.”

Why were the vaccines authorized so quickly? What is the relationship between the regulators and the companies they regulate? Dr. Malhotra says regulators cannot be trusted to be independent, citing that 86 percent of the funding for the UK MHRA comes from the drug industry itself. Regulators being funded by the very industry they are supposed to regulate is a huge conflict of interest. Australia’s TGA receives 96 percent of its funding from the drug industry, while Europe’s EMA is 89 percent, Japan’s PMDA is 85 percent, the U.S. FDA is 65 percent, and Canada’s HC is 50.5 percent.

Did Doctors Enable Informed Consent?

According to Dr. Craig, “what was happening with informed consent was hugely concerning. I think what concerned me the most were doctors who weren’t informing themselves.” She said many doctors simply got all their information from the news or the government, accepting it without question.

Dr. Malhotra believes that “the lack of acknowledgment of vaccine injuries being a major issue is rooted in willful blindness.” People want to ignore the truth about vaccines to feel safe, avoid conflict, release anxiety, and protect prestige. “One thing that’s become very clear now is that the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission and, in fact, has very limited efficacy, if any, in preventing infection,” he said. “Therefore, it becomes an issue of individual choice. And certainly, when you look at age groups under 70, the harms clearly seem to outweigh the benefits for most people.”

Deaths from COVID rise sharply with age, with most deaths occurring over the age of 70. Yet, governments have pushed the vaccines on the youth. According to CDC data, actual cases of myocarditis within seven days of COVID vaccination for males are exponentially higher than expected, particularly in the 12-24 age group.

The documentary on EpochTV references the sudden deaths happening, particularly among athletes. In addition, the Office of National Statistics confirmed that in England and Wales, deaths are up 11.7 percent in 10- to 14-year-olds and nearly 15 percent in the 50-59 age group. Just those two age groups alone could equate to an excess of 75,000 deaths in 2022 in England and Wales this year—and not from COVID.

Unethical Psychological Tactics

SAGE is the British government’s scientific advisory group. According to SAGE meeting notes, the British government employed tactics such as emotional manipulation and fear to persuade the public to get vaccinated. Dr. Christian Buckland, psychotherapist and counselor, said it’s important to understand that there has been “the promotion of unethical psychological techniques” over the last two years to encourage behavioral change, including artificially increasing the need to be afraid.

He also cites that these tactics were based on numbers that have since been shown to be inflated. This has led to a sharp division between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. When the mandates and coercion came into play, tensions continued to rise. Dr. Buckland explained that when you use unethical means to manipulate people, it becomes dangerous, encouraging the demonization of other people and raising not just fear but also anger.

Government, Media, and Big Tech Censorship

The SAGE strategies also point to the use of media to advance their message and cover up any alternative narratives, such as the BBC admitting it is their policy not to engage with anti-vaxers, regardless of if they are credible or not. Massive marches of people advocating for their bodily autonomy in Britain were ignored, while an estimated half a billion pounds of public money was spent on media advertising.

Then there was the “Trusted News Initiative,” which, according to the BBC, is “an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organizations working together to stop the spread of disinformation.” Partners of this initiative included the BBC, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, Youtube, the AFP, and The Washington Post, among others. Governments, media, and big tech companies worked together for a common script- their script. They aggressively advanced their version of the truth, intentionally silencing any opposing narratives. This media campaign was utterly void of free speech, balanced reporting, and partiality.

It’s Time For People to Know the Truth

According to the UK’s Office for National Statistics, between Jan. 1 and May 31 this year, 15,113 people died of COVID-19 in England—90 percent of those people had received at least one COVID vaccine. A paper published in the United States, with a key author being the Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, found that for every one vaccinated person that could be prevented from hospitalization with COVID, up to 98 young people could be injured from the COVID vaccine. Meanwhile, in 2021, Pfizer doubled its revenue by $81 billion and is projected to surpass $100 billion in revenue in 2022.

Perhaps proper scientific debate during the vaccine rollout could have led to less vaccine injury. Maybe greater emphasis on informed consent would have led to a more accurate risk-benefit analysis for those choosing to get the shot. Would millions have been so confident in taking the vaccine had they known the unskewed data?

Tragically, these measures were not allowed under the mainstream narrative of “safe and effective.” As a result, the public was misled about the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine. Now, it is time for them to know the truth. Share this documentary, available on EpochTV, to help inform others.

Watch “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” on Epoch Cinema here.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Follow

Emily is a writer for The Epoch Times and a freelance political journalist. With an extensive background in Political Communication and Journalism, she is committed to serving her country by bringing the truth about important issues of the day to the American people.