Dr Peter Doshi
- In a recent interview with German TV, senior editor at the British Medical Journal Dr. Peter Doshi expressed that that “Our legacy media has not done a good job in providing balanced coverage about the vaccines.”
- He emphasized how “we’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit.”
- With so many scientists, doctors and published peer-reviewed science raising concerns, why haven’t these concerns been properly communicated to the citizenry?
- Why has there been such a big campaign to censor these concerns and deem them a “conspiracy theory?”
“Our legacy media has not done a good job in providing balanced coverage about the vaccines” and that “we’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit.
It was very unfortunate, that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty…but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns. We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people…I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Doshi was part of an international group of eminent academics and physicians who went back and analyzed safety data from the original clinical trials that were the backbone of the FDA’s decision to authorize the mRNA vaccines in December 2020. It was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Vaccine in September 2022.
The analysis showed that mRNA vaccines were associated with 1 additional serious adverse event for every 800 people vaccinated. This would normally have a vaccine taken off the market, and is in sharp contrast to the idea that serious adverse events are extremely rare as federal health regulatory agencies have commonly claimed with regards to COVID-19 vaccines. The authors also found that the trial data showed that the increase in serious adverse events following mRNA vaccination surpassed the reduction in risk of ending up hospitalized with COVID-19.
“They should immediately be warning people about this safety signal that we found, and they should immediately be replicating our analysis — the data are indicating there’s increased risk at a level that is much higher than has previously been realized.”
Beyond their analysis, it’s important to mention that vaccine injury surveillance and reporting systems around the world have recorded a record number of serious injuries (hospitalizations, deaths, permanent disabilities) that people believe to be a result of COVID-19 vaccines. Multiple papers have emerged explaining the possible mechanisms of action as to why these are occurring.
Many of these injuries and safety signals don’t seem to be properly investigated, and again, a proper discussion about this topic has not been had.
Even the BMJ was “fact checked” and censored for showing that Pfizer falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial for COVID vaccines. You can learn more about that here.
Throughout the pandemic, we’ve been told to “trust the science” but Doshi says, “How can one recommend responsibly that these products are based on science if the data are not available?
Science is about sharing data. We’re in an era of open science, not secret science.”
Doshi and colleagues have written an open letter to the CEOs of the vaccine companies asking for the raw data, but as yet, they have not received a reply.