I must say I was rather surprised, as I enjoyed an evening of leisurely sauntering through the cyber saloons of the Wild West Web, to be confronted with a screenshot from one of my very own articles - shared by none other than Dr. Aseem Malhotra.
As regular readers will know, Dr. Malhotra has been the subject of two of my recent articles, regarding his new research paper and press conference relating to the harms of the Covid vaccines. As a long-time fan of Dr. Malhotra and his work on diet, I was pleased to promote his new work widely, both on my site here, and my other site, Informed Consent Matters.
Needless to say, as someone who has been warning of the inevitable harms of this vaccine since a year before the "plague" even started, and who has been very active in vaccine safety advocacy for the past seven years (having launched my own vaccine education site in 2015), I am happy to promote anyone who is helping to bring the catastrophic harms associated with this vaccine to light.
However: many thousands of people have been doing this since Covid vaccine development began, and most have been smeared, vilified, and ultimately silenced altogether - de-platformed and demonetised - so I speculated that - as revealing the harms of the vaccine has always been part of "the plan" - Dr. Malhotra could be being unwittingly used by hidden hands to manifest the next stage of their agenda.
You don't have to agree with my thesis (and neither does he: nor would I expect him to!) but you do have to recognise my right to formulate such a thesis and to share it with my audience, since that is kind of what I do... I do not take things uncritically at face value, and I always strive to analyse, question, and look at the bigger picture, and I would encourage everyone else to do that, too.
Anyway, back to this screenshot that Dr. Malhotra shared: it was, I thought, a curious choice, since it focused only on a few flattering comments I made about him, and my statement that he appears to have had extensive media training. He shared this screenshot completely out of context - without linking to the full article - and said "thank you Miri (whoever you are)", which was weird, as he obviously must know who I am, as he must have visited my website in order to acquire the screenshot (and I know a lot of people have been sending him my article about him and asking for his comment: the article was also repeatedly shared in the comments section of his thread). After thanking me for my remarks, he went on to state that he had not in fact - as I alleged he had - had any media training.
Well: of everything I said in my articles regarding him, this seems a very odd bit to focus on!
So he says he hasn't had any media training, and that he is naturally just that confident and fluent in front of a camera. Ok. So he is even further naturally blessed than I initially thought: not just clever and good-looking, but naturally suave and charismatic, too! Good for him.
So, with that out the way - that one relatively throwaway speculation - what about the actual main focus of my article?
The main thrust of my piece was that Malhotra is potentially being used to reveal the harms of the Covid vaccine to the mainstream, as part of the "controlled demolition" of our society - that we are to be shown that governments, health agencies, and regulators failed us so egregiously with the lethally dangerous injection that they can never be trusted again and must be dismantled - so that the overlords can '6uild 6ack 6etter' with a new system like, ooh, how about - a One World Government?
The new system will win our trust by presenting us with "heroes" who will reveal, strategically, some of the terrible harms of this one - such as the Covid vaccine. These people will then persuasively be able to declare they have our best interests at heart when they go to make further health recommendations, such as taking other vaccines. "You can trust me, because I told you the Covid vaccines were dangerous. But not these new vaccines. They're completely safe."
The main bone of contention I have with Aseem Malhotra is that he has stated his belief that the other, more traditional vaccines on the market are some of the safest products in medicine, when anybody who has spent any time researching vaccine safety knows that that is not true.
It could be that Dr. Malhotra simply hasn't had the time to research other vaccines in the way he has the Covid injections, so is simply repeating dogmas picked up from medical school (if that is so, he'd be better off admitting he hasn't actually done his due diligence on other vaccines and deferring to others who have); it could be that he knows other vaccines are dangerous, but to say so would completely blow any remaining credibility he has with the mainstream, so he has to do the whole "I'm not anti-vax but..." thing to get them to listen to him (and I get that, but it's a questionable and risky strategy). Or it could be something else.
The issue is, it represents some very significant cognitive dissonance for him to simultaneously believe health agencies and regulators are completely captured and corrupt (indeed, he has - correctly - called the pharmaceutical industry "psychopathic"), but that they are somehow still totally rigorous and to be trusted over all other vaccines. You really can't hold both those beliefs at once. If the pharmaceutical industry and those beholden to it are psychopathic, then of course we can't trust them on anything, and the extensive history of criminal fraud endemic in the pharmaceutical industries, makes it obvious we can't.
Far from vaccines being exempt from this, they're actually the most implicated, because vaccines are the only products pharmaceutical companies produce for which they have absolutely no liability - no matter how many people the injections injure or kill. That's not just for the Covid vaccine, that's ALL vaccines. In the UK, if you are seriously harmed, or a family member is killed, by a vaccine, the only recourse open to you is to appeal to the tax-payer funded Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, where if you can prove you are "at least 60% disabled", you may qualify for a one-off payment of £120,000 (but please note your benefits will be affected by this).
This being the case - that already "psychopathic" pharmaceutical companies have no financial liability if their vaccines severely injure or kill - does not and should not inspire any confidence that they are incentivised to make these products safe.
And, indeed, they do not. Vaccine "safety" testing is an absolute farce, with vaccines very rarely tested against a true inert placebo, but rather, against other vaccines, or solutions containing the same adjuvant as the vaccines, when it is the adjuvant often responsible for many adverse reactions.
The extensive work of internationally renowned scientist, Professor Chris Exley, has demonstrated in great detail how harmful aluminium adjuvants in vaccines can be, and also that the amount of aluminium in vaccines is akin to "a lottery"
However, questioning the safety of holy elixir vaccines (which seem to have conclusively replaced baptismal rites in the West) is utterly taboo in establishment $cience, so despite being a top expert in his field with 30+ years experience, Chris was scandalously forced into early retirement by his university who effectively withdrew all his funding (please see the full story here).
The psychopathic pharmaceutical industry and those who benefit from its wealth will ruthlessly go after and destroy anybody who credibly highlights dangers with vaccines, because if real, unbiased science was done on all these injections, we would find they are all dangerous and unnecessary - that whatever benefits they may have are always outweighed by the risk they represent. It's a bold claim, but it's the conclusion almost everyone comes to after enough time researching these injections.
I don't expect someone who has only started researching vaccine dangers in the last few months to have come to that conclusion yet (and they may not ever), but I certainly don't either expect them to state other vaccines are the safest products in medicine, or that we shouldn't evaluate them with the same discerning and critical eye we do all other products manufactured by criminal psychopaths.
So, while I'm delighted Aseem Malhotra is putting so much time and energy into exposing the Covid vaccines (just as many other great and dedicated scientists, doctors, lawyers, journalists, filmmakers, and lay people have), I retain my right to be discerning and questioning, and wonder why he is still so enthusiastically advocating for other vaccines. Why not say, "I haven't looked into other vaccines the way I have with the Covid vaccine, so I really can't comment on them at this stage", rather than telling us all they are safe? This obviously undermines his credibility and our ability to trust him, because most people who follow Dr. Malhotra are further along in their vaccine journey than he is and know that the other vaccines are not safe either.
I'm also baffled as to why Jeremy Vine or Piers Morgan - previously zealous pro-vaccinators, and both of whom are known personally to Aseem - haven't commented on his new research or press conference? They obviously know about it - but not a peep out of either of them, neither condemning him as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" who's gone off the deep end, which is routinely what they've done to anyone who's questioned vaccine safety over the last two years. Just... nothing. This is obviously because they've been told by their paymasters to say nothing about it... yet? It does still look to me like this is leading up to some planned "big reveal", because Aseem seems able to say what he wants without being censored or de-platformed by Twitter, YouTube etc., and this has been profoundly unusual for prominent activists in the last two years. So it looks very much to me like these platforms are now cooperating with getting the word out, because they're building up to the big "great reveal", which I have been predicting since April last year.
Again, I want to stress that the establishment can use well-meaning people in this way, without the overt complicity of these people. In fact, it often does. It is eminently possible to be advancing the agenda without realising you are so doing (for instance, I know of people who are against the vaccine, but still believe wearing a mask is a must - they're not "controlled opposition", they're just wrong - but their wrongness is unwittingly pushing part of the agenda).
There's also the issue, that several people have understandably raised, that Aseem Malhotra is late to this party and maybe could do with eating a little more humble pie before being uncritically hailed as a hero. Many people just as eminent as him have been sounding the alarm bell about the Covid vaccine since before it hit the market, but Aseem admits he dismissed this as anti-vax nonsense, encouraged others to take the vaccine, and took two doses himself. Now, I don't think anyone should be blamed for making a mistake or getting it wrong (we're all fallible and we all get it wrong sometimes), but they should be accountable for it, and apologise to those people who they insulted, dismissed, or gave bad advice to. I can't really see any evidence Malhotra has done that (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I think that is rubbing many people up the wrong way.
So, these are my questions for Dr. Aseem Malhotra: I meant all the complimentary things I said about you, but why did you share these comments totally out of context and without a link to the full article? This obviously confused and misled people.
Fortunately, a lot of the same people who follow Aseem follow me also and recognised which article the quote was from, so many linked it in the thread - thank you very much to everyone who did (and for all your kind compliments! Aw, you guys...). Many also asked: why have you only focused on the issue of whether you have or have not had media training (a bit of a non-issue in the greater scheme of things) and not the main substance of her article?
So that's what I would like to know as well.
This is not about tedious name-calling regarding who is or who is not "controlled opposition", a "shill" etc (I've had it all myself, and once even had a woman go through my friends' list one by one writing to them all telling them if they continued to associate with me, she would assume they were all satanists). It's about being discerning and diligent and asking questions about things that don't add up. Because that is what (real) journalists do.
George Orwell nailed it as usual with his observation: "journalism is printing what someone else doesn't want published. Everything else is public relations".
If I were to simply write a two-dimensional gushy piece about Aseem Malhotra saying how wonderful he is and what a hero, that would be PR, not journalism. He has a sturdy enough PR team already as far as I can see, and doesn't need me to contribute to it. So I am simply doing the same thing I have been doing since I began my "citizen journalism" two years ago - looking at the bigger picture, asking some salient questions, and hoping to establish the truth.
So, Dr. Malhotra, over to you...
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.