Earlier today, top UK cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, took part in a press conference, where he shared his new research paper demonstrating clear and irrefutable evidence of harm from Covid 19 vaccinations. The press conference was hosted by the World Council for Health's Dr. Tess Lawrie, and also speaking was Dr. Ryan Cole by video link.
News of this press conference caused quite a stir on alternative and social media, with actor and activist John Bowe suggesting this would be a game-changer, sentiments echoed by GB News' Neil Oliver. I only heard about the press conference a couple of days ago, but in analysing the situation, deduced they were probably onto something, and this was not yet another "false prophecy" (cf. arrest of Matt Hancock, various "this is it" big dates, and so on) - but that didn't necessarily mean this was all good news. I expanded on my thoughts in this article, which is probably worth reading (it's short-ish by Miri AF standards) so the following commentary makes sense...
I watched the entire press conference live and in full - which was much longer than I expected, at 2 hours 25 minutes - and if you can find the time, I recommend you do, too. I very rarely recommend videos as I find it difficult to get my information that way - I prefer to read - but this is very well done and will hold your attention throughout.
To use the consummate conspiracist's vernacular of choice, it drops "truth bomb" after "truth bomb", all vigorously backed up with evidence, and reveals not only how dangerous the Covid vaccines are, but sets the stage by explaining how corrupt and unreliable both industry and regulators are, where it comes to pharmaceutical products.
Malhotra is an impeccably credentialed speaker, not only as a top cardiologist with two decades' worth experience and as a successful published author, but also as a media star. He has a long and distinguished history of appearing on television and chatting with prominent broadcasters and journalists, and it shows. This man has been media trained to within an inch of his life, and this coupled with his youthful good-looks, his fit physique, and smart-yet-not-stuffy attire (suit but open-neck shirt with no tie) makes him immensely plausible, relatable, and likable.
And hey - I do like him. I have for years, and agree with everything he says about the importance of reducing carbohydrates in the diet, especially for diabetics or those with other metabolic disorders. He has been a stringent critic of the government and NHS in their "healthy eating guidelines", pointing out repeatedly that these represent literally the exact opposite of a healthy diet. He has also correctly pointed out that exercise plays virtually no role in reversing obesity (this is almost entirely down to diet). So he has made a career of challenging sacred shibboleths of mainstream health culture and the NHS, and in that sense, it's unsurprising he would turn his hand to vaccinations - especially after they were strongly implicated in the death of his father (in the press conference, Dr. Malhotra related an anecdote about his extremely healthy father - also a doctor - who was able to beat super-fit son Aseem at Badminton, at the age of 72. Two years later, he died of a sudden heart attack, shortly after receiving Covid vaccinations).
However, I see some anomalies here, which I touched on a little in my previous article, and will expand further on here.
I have always firmly maintained that revealing the harms of the Covid vaccines to the masses is part of the plan, and, indeed, Dr. Malhotra's press conference has already started to get some mainstream coverage, with The Washington Times picking it up moments after it aired. It seems up until now, The Washington Times had been generally pro-vaccine and was promoting the new booster as little as a few weeks ago. So this seems quite encouraging.
Semi-mainstream GB News is giving it extensive coverage too, and so, as I said yesterday, I predict this heralds the beginning of mainstreamed exposure of the harms the vaccine has done. It may not happen quite as immediately and dramatically as we might prefer, but perhaps a gradual build-up (as we're already seeing previously zealous pro-vaccinator Paul Offit doing mainstream interviews with anyone who will listen warning others not to take the new booster) is judged to look more organic and authentic, than the media going lockstep and reporting it all at once. Aseem did say on several occasions in the press conference how controlled and corrupt the mainstream media is, and how it will be an uphill struggle to get them to pay attention (but that they will be successful eventually), so perhaps it simply wouldn't look plausible to have the world's media suddenly and all-at-once backtrack on decades of editorial policy and so it has to happen a bit more gradually.
I can't be sure what the exact strategy is (alas, not having access to "the plan" and only being able to make my best guess based on available evidence), but I firmly maintain that this new study and lengthy press conference will be instrumental in a change-up of the narrative as "the truth" (or some strategic approximation of it) is formally revealed, and that this is all being stage-managed by hidden hands.
As I said yesterday, Aseem himself may not be explicitly aware of this - expert social engineers can use others to their advantage, without said others necessarily realising they are being so used, and it's easier to slip into that trap than you might think: for instance, on more than one occasion, seemingly well-meaning, "on our side" people have offered me money to promote certain content or theories on my site. I have always declined - and always will - but I can certainly understand why others might naïvely accept. So I do think Aseem is being used by higher-ups for a wider purpose, but he himself might not actually be fully aware of this.
Why do I think there's a wider agenda that he's being used to fulfil? Well, I think this for several reasons. The first is that he is extremely visible (having appeared on mainstream TV multiple times and with a huge social media following), and the second is that he is extremely credible, with strings of top qualifications and mainstream experience, including mainstream media experience. He's not some "quack fake doctor" with dubious qualifications from online institutions, he's the real thing.
This means he is hugely influential and credible in the eyes of many - and that he therefore has huge power to move the narrative. As such, if someone as visible as him started genuinely going off-script and off-narrative, the first thing the social engineers would do is de-platform and de-monetise him, as they have to so many others, and others with far less impact. They kicked me off Twitter despite the fact I had less than 3,000 followers, and banned me from PayPal even though I was making less than one quarter of the minimum wage.
If they would so brutally censor me - someone who in the greater scheme of things is a very small fish (and who didn't even pass Biology GCSE, never mind have a medical degree) - why would someone so vastly more powerful and influential be allowed to continue unimpeded?
I'm not trying to say, "if you're not de-platformed you're obviously not genuine", merely posing the logical question as to why - at a time when social media platforms and crowdfunders are being very heavy-handed with the ban hammer, Dr. Malhotra has so seamlessly managed to avoid it?
It's a valid question, and I'm sick to death of being howled down every time I investigate someone's intentions or motives with "stop calling people controlled opposition, you're dividing the movement!!!".
I think these people - who insist NO-ONE is controlled opposition and we must never dare suggest otherwise - are just as bad as those who call EVERYONE controlled opposition - and, listen, I know they're annoying, as I get this accusation too. I was once accused of being a satanist on the basis that I had stood in the council elections for Freedom Alliance (definitely not satanists - they are entirely secular), and was accused at length of being "controlled" when I voiced my opinion that Don't Pay UK are an establishment scam.
So I know it's tedious and frustrating to be accused of being controlled opposition when you're not - however: I entirely support people's prerogative to make this accusation (and for the accused to then robustly defend themselves), because we do not get to the truth if we do not maintain eternal vigilance and remain sceptical and questioning. Please DO ask yourself if I am controlled opposition, do your due diligence, and come to your own conclusion.
Do that for everyone who has a platform in this (or any) influential movement, because ALL influential, anti-establishment movements are infiltrated by said establishment. All of them. Because... of course they are. "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves", and so forth. I have a very good idea of who the main "controlled" assets in this movement are, but nevertheless, I listen to what they have to say anyway, because the whole point of controlled opposition - in order to be credible and successful - is that they have to give a lot of good information, and then strategically lace the lies therein. If you are a genuine and diligent critical thinker, then controlled opposition pose little threat to you, as you can take the good information and leave the rest.
The problem is, a great deal of people (all of us, at some stage) struggle to maintain this level of vigilance and can find it very easy to be bamboozled and led down the garden path by people seeming to say everything we want to hear - classic pied piperism.
So when a major, credible new voice bursts onto the scene echoing all our thoughts and concerns and appearing to vindicate us at every level, naturally, our response can be to drop our scepticism and defences, and think, "Aha! A true hero! We're saved!"
Yet as master Mason Albert Pike said, "when the people want a hero, we shall supply him."
Aseem Malhotra, with his TV good looks and likeable, relatable persona, has "hero" stamped all over him. So, that's what I think his role is - the hero who has come along with the strength to carry on, and fight for the truth to come out.
I think he'll be successful, too, insofar as getting the mainstream media vehicles to report that the Covid vaccines are dangerous and need to be stopped. Why do I think this? Because look at what hasn't happened: where is psychotically pro-vaccine Jeremy Vine, Aseem's good friend who he calls a "top man", decrying Aseem across all his platforms as a crazy nutjob? Where is Piers Morgan, another demented pro-injector, and also close colleague of Aseem's, saying the same thing?
Tellingly, Aseem revealed in the press conference that he had recently had lunch with "a very prominent broadcaster" who had initially been extremely in favour of the vaccine, and had succeeded by the end of the lunch in changing the broadcaster's mind. I'm pretty sure he's referring to Jeremy Vine, who he Tweeted about having lunch with a few months ago (to the apoplectic fury of his followers - "don't you know what he's been saying about the vaccine?!").
So let's recap here: Aseem is hugely visible and hugely credible, yet hasn't been de-platformed or de-monetised (as so many less visible voices saying the same things have). He's exceptionally well connected in the media, yet none of his close, and very high-profile, contacts are denouncing him, despite how pro-vaccine they have previously claimed to be. The mainstream press is starting to give coverage to his remarks.
It seems pretty clear to me that none of this is incidental, and here is the kicker: in the conference, where Aseem did indeed drop truth bomb after truth bomb, there was one caveat:
He described vaccines as the safest medical products there are.
He was at great pains to emphasise that not only was he not an "anti-vaxxer", but that he was actually a great vaccine enthusiast, considering them one of medicine's crowning glories - it's just that Covid vaccines, he explained, are so different to traditional vaccines. They use a completely different technology and they've been rushed through in a completely different way. That's why they're dangerous. But other vaccines are incredibly safe, incredibly effective. Nothing to worry about there.
Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt, we could say, "he's just saying that to be credible to the mainstream. If he denounced all vaccines, they would instantly dismiss him as insane. His case is stronger if - for now at least - he just concentrates on Covid vaccines."
And that's a valid point. The question is though, is is true? If, after the MSM finally retracts and publishes the truth about Covid vaccines, will Aseem then further his campaigning by declaring, "... and actually, all other vaccines are dangerous too?"
I would put money on the fact that he will not. I think he's playing a very strategic game (whether knowingly or not) by winning trust as a courageous whistleblower calling out the Covid vaccine, so he can later be used as a mouthpiece to promote other vaccines.
"Now, THESE vaccines are safe," Dr. Aseem might say. "You know that if there were safety issues, I'd tell you, just like I did with the Covid vaccines. But these ones are different. These are completely safe."
The pharmaceutical industry has already made an unfathomable fortune from Covid vaccines, so I doubt very much if they care if these are now withdrawn, as they can simply transfer their profiteering to some other dodgy injection instead (after all, there is no financial fall-out for them if the Covid vaccines are shown to irreparably harm people, as we all too well know). They will trot out some trite PR nonsense about "lessons learned" and "standards tightened", people will believe them, and the whole tedious, terrible cycle will start again (just like with thalidomide, vioxx, et al).
There is a huge amount of scepticism and distrust in current institutions and authorities at the moment, and I believe the social engineers intend to capitalise on that (having engineered it in the first place) by comprehensively collapsing all remaining trust and faith in said authorities over the winter months (which we keep relentlessly being warned are going to be 'dire', 'deathly', and so on and so forth), whilst simultaneously promoting new "heroes" who will come and save us - who we will uncritically trust as "on our side", but who will inevitably turn out to be establishment assets playing a part. I said exactly the same thing in 2016 about Donald Trump.
So that's what I think is ultimately going on with Dr. Malhotra and his glittering high-profile activism - and that others like him will inevitably emerge, too. Glossy, media-trained, high-profile "heroes", who ultimately have a hidden and nefarious agenda (even if in some ways unwittingly).
So please never be afraid to ask questions, to scrutinise someone's motives, to look at everything they're saying and seeing if it really adds up. It's not "divisive" or "low-vibrational" (tsk!) to do this, and if someone's going to be a very prominent and very controversial activist, then they've got to expect people to question and scrutinise them (and if they can't handle that, this probably isn't the career for them).
Because it is so, so true that - not only is eternal vigilance the price of freedom - but that the truth does not fear investigation.
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.