For those of you who have been following Dr Aseem Malhotra know that this prominent UK cardiologist did a complete U-turn over the Covid-19 vax when his father, a fit 73 year old died from a massive coronary just two months following his two jabs.
Now his expertise is being called upon as an expert witness in Finland, where Mika Vauhkala is suing the Finnish government and Frazer Group for violations of human rights done with their Covidpass.
This Covidpass was elected into Finnish law in October 2021 and established electronic passes to be shown at sports clubs, entertainment venues, bars etc to prove the bearer has had the jab or to show they have had and recovered from Covid. People without a pass could be ordered to leave said premises.
Mika Vauhkala, a 42 year old business entrepreneur from Helsinki, is suing the State Treasury and Frazer group in a civil action lawsuit. The circumstance was that on 10th of December 2021 at 09.00 in the morning, Fazer cafe demanded a coupon pass from its customers as a condition for being allowed to have breakfast at the Kluuvikatu branch central Helsinki.
Mr. Vauhkala is presenting numerous pieces of evidence and oral testimony in court to show that even before the corona pass laws were enacted, the international scientific community had understood that Covid vaccines did not prevent the spread of Covid-19 disease. Thus, the requirement of said passport was a violation of fundamental human rights under Article 106 of the Constitution.
As we know these court cases drag on. The preparatory stages began in June 2023. Now on 12th April 2024 Dr Malhotra gave his testimony which he has released for general use.
He begins by introducing himself and gives his qualifications to be acting as an expert witness. He then talks broadly about the blocks to finding and accepting the truth in relation to the harm caused by the vaccines. He stated that in his opinion;
...the greatest barriers to the truth are not factual or intellectual barriers, but psychological...all of us as human beings are vulnerable to these psychological barriers and we should have compassion for ourselves.
pinterest
The first psychological barrier is one of fear. I still remember from early on in the pandemic we were all scared. We did not know what we were dealing with. The issue with fear is that when people and populations are in a state of fear, we are less likely to engage in critical thinking and we are more likely to be compliant.
The fear was grossly exaggerated. One of the examples of that is that when we had good information on the mortality rate of Covid, in the US one survey in 2020 revealed that 50% of Americans believed that if they caught Covid their risk of hospitalisation was 50% when the actual figure was less than 1%.
The second barrier to the truth...is one called wilful blindness. This is when human beings, all of us, are vulnerable to this, turn a blind eye to the truth in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige and fragile egos.
He admits he too was one of those people who for a very long time was wilfully blind to the harms of the Covid vaccine.
I could not conceive of any possibility whatsoever of this vaccine causing harm.
Dr Aseem was a regular on British TV shows tackling “vaccine hesitancy”. He did this even though he was aware at the time that there were serious shortcomings in the pharmaceutical companies; that they’ve been found guilty of fraud on many occasions, that the third most common cause of death pre-pandemic was prescribed medications.
He then goes onto to speak about his own personal story, about his father’s unexpected death. His first concern had been why it had taken 30 minutes for the ambulance to arrive.
Two weeks later the deputy chief nurse of NHS England, a government health body, called me up... 'Aseem there’s something I need to tell you’ ...for the last two months prior to my father’s cardiac arrest in most regions of the UK, ambulances were not getting to patients in time...And there had been a deliberate...cover-up involving the government and the Department of Health to withhold this information from doctors and the public.
Just before Dr Aseem was to go public with this scandal he messaged a professor of cardiology who has a leadership role, and was told not to do this as it would make him enemies. He brought this up to indicate that there is a cultural problem within medicine.
BBC News coverage of the story
He tells the court that as a world expert on the progression and development of coronary heart disease the post mortem findings on his father made no sense to him.
My father had two severe blockages in his coronary arteries. There was no actual evidence of heart attack and likely there was a rhythm disturbance because of reduced blood supply that led to his cardiac arrest.
Following this he tells the court that around October and November three different sources of information were brought to his attention;
I was contacted by a journalist with a Times newspaper who reported to me and said, 'DR Malhotra, we have reports of an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks in hospitals in Scotland', and asked me what I thought was going on. I explained to her that at that time, with the evidence I knew of my own experience two likely contributory factors were lockdown stress
I was surprised when she asked me whether I thought there may be a contribution of the Covid vaccine to these heart attacks. I said to her a good scientist should never exclude any possibility.
Call Me Kinfolk YouTube
The doctor proceeds to inform the court of a publication which appeared in the journal Circulation, which is considered the highest impact cardiology journal in the US that revealed a potentially very strong link between the Covid mRNA vaccines and acceleration in heart attack risk. Specifically in the middle aged. They showed;
a plausible mechanism, by use of inflammatory markers in the blood, that increased the baseline risk of those people having a heart attack in five years, from 11% to 25%, just within two months of having Covid mRNA vaccines.
If this were true then we were going to see an increase of heart attacks and excess deaths in heavily vaccinated countries for the next few years.
The third piece of evidence Dr Malhotra brings to the attention of the court is being contacted by a whistleblower from Oxford University. He relates;
This cardiologist explained to me that a group of researchers in his department had accidentally found, through the use of specialised imaging of the heart, that there was a signal of increased inflammation of the heart arteries, which was there in the vaccinated, but not there in the unvaccinated. The lead researcher of that group had sat down the juniors, and had said that we are not going to explore these findings any further because it may affect our funding from the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr Malhotra continues to testify to his opposition to mandates for health care workers in the UK. He says that it was clear by the summer of 2021 that the vaccine didn’t stop Covid. He addresses how after speaking out anonymous complaints arose which he contends were from academics with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
He relates an anecdote in which he makes a call to the chairman of the British Medical Association in December 2021. Dr Malhotra spent two hours on the phone explaining to him everything that he knew up to that stage about his concerns of the Covid mRNA vaccine. “Aseem, nobody appears to critically appraise the evidence on the Covid mRNA vaccine as well as you have, most of my colleagues are getting their information on the benefits and harms of the vaccine from the BBC.”
This was replicated by the former chair of the CDC in the US, Rochelle Walensky, who in an interview later on had said that her initial optimism of the vaccine benefits came from CNN News reports.
Recognising he needed to carry out his own independent critical analysis of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Dr Malhotra then spent six to nine months critically appraising the data. He also spoke to two Pfizer whistleblowers, three investigative journalists and eminent scientists from the Universities of Oxford, Stanford and Harvard.
The most critical research that was published on this issue...August 2022, was published in the journal Vaccine. That research was conducted by some of the world’s top, independent of drug industry influence, academics. [With] That research we were able to reanalyse the original randomised control trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna. They were able to do this because new information was made available on the FDA’s website and Health Canada’s website.
The conclusions of that paper were really very disturbing. The original trials that led to the drug regulatory approval of these vaccines revealed that you were more likely to suffer serious harm from taking the vaccine specifically hospitalisation, life changing event, or disability, then you were to be hospitalised from Covid.
That rate of harm at two months was very high at 1 in 800.
Dr Malhotra then provides examples of vaccines that have been pulled because they had side effects risks that were a lot lower than 1 in 800. He makes the point the publication is in a very prestigious journal, it has been peer reviewed and has had no significant rebuttals.
In my view, it was very clear that given this information...that this vaccine now in my view should never have been approved for use in a single human being in the first place.
He wraps up his disposition by talking about the many strands of research showing a signal of considerable and common serious harm from these vaccines. Mentioning pharmacovigilance data (yellow cards/self reporting), plausible biological mechanisms of harm, observational data and autopsy data proving death was definitively caused by the vaccine.
Finally he makes reference to his own published paper in the Journal of Insulin Resistance in September 2022. Here he concluded that we should pause and investigate the issue around the Covid mRNA vaccines. Calling for the information from the drugs companies needs to be independently examined and highlighting the monetary ties between the drugs companies and the regulators calling it a gross conflict of interest.
He leaves the court with the hope that this case will be the first step towards cleaning up the health system.