Who fact checks the fact checkers?

covid Jan 17, 2023

Gaslighting is so 2021... This is a long article, so click the link to read it all

This morning people in the UK, and anyone else who reads The Guardian, awoke to find the following prominent headline…

Nicola Davis of The Guardian purports to claim that cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra somehow ‘hijacked’ an announcer-led interview that the BBC invited him to give on reducing the risks of a heart attack or stroke primarily with drugs known as Statins.

As expected, Gates-funded ‘anti-vaxxer’ whipping boy Full Fact were none-too-shy to step into the fray. While admitting that Covid-19 vaccines have killed some people, Full Fact’s writer Leo Benedictus misdirected readers in his disjointed hit-piece on Dr Malhotra’s interview with the scientifically dubious claim that excess deaths would have been higher without the covid-19 vaccines… as if that was ever true or even relevant to this particular discussion.

In an article that was laden mostly with circular references back to other Full Fact self-referencing articles, their axe to grind with him, presumably on behalf of their pharma-company shareholding benefactors, was that Dr Malhotra was misleading because he didn’t say exactly what they would have preferred him to say.

Boo hoo hoo Leo Benedictus and Full Fact… were your little feelings hurt?

For those who missed it, here is Dr Malhotra’s entire 8 minute interview unedited

For readers I have transcribed the pertinent sections…

Fact Check

Let us consider the salient claims in what Dr Malhotra said and whether or not they in any way are misinformation or a miscategorisation of what the current research says:

Claim 1:

Is there uncertainty about what’s causing excess cardiac deaths at the moment?

Result: True.

This confusion can be seen not only in the many headlines that talk about young people dying suddenly and unexpectedly, but in the massively amplified claims of a previously unknown condition called Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS).

It can also be seen in the dramatic rise in headlines in late 2022 to distract from the burgeoning knowledge that the mRNA vaccines were causing cardiovascular harm by purporting to identify novel causes for SADS cardiac deaths... including:

A weak handshake...

Severe Weather...

Rise in heart disease may be explained by extreme weather conditions: Study
A study says that a rise in heart disease may be explained by extreme weather conditions.


Good news...

Shovelling snow...

Bill shock...


And a cold can of diet cola...

This is by no means an exhaustive list… there have been others.

It shouldn’t escape the ardent reader... but just in case it did... look at the dates on all these headlines. They all come from 2022. And they all come during the same period you’ve been hearing about footballers (here, here and here), tennis players (here, here and here), cricketers (here and here), TV and Movie stars (here, here, here, here and here)  and many other fit, young and health people who have been having serious cardiac related events. Cardiac events that have also been occurring mostly in people with absolutely no history of prior heart conditions.

Claim 2:

That a journal peer reviewed, accepted and published his findings that his father died from two Pfizer Covid-19 injections.

Result: True.

Here is an excerpt from Dr Malhotra’s article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance:

Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine - Part 1
In response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), several new pharmaceutical agents have been administered to billions of people worldwide, including the young and healthy at little risk from the virus. Considerable leeway has ...
Journal of Insulin Resistance

I have highlighted the relevant portions. In it he, as he claims, discusses his father’s heart attack and the unexplainable post-mortem findings. Like any good researcher and scientist he looks for other peer reviewed clinical findings that might explain his observations (shown in green), and he relates those to his fathers clinical presentation. He does not absolutely claim that the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injections caused his father’s death. Rather, and again – like a good scientist, he simply wonders whether, based on the cited study in green, it is possible they may have contributed to his fathers demise.

Claim 3:

Did a recent article in the journal Vaccine identify a risk of serious adverse events at 1-in-800 for the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines?

Result: True.

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults - PubMed
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
This article, published on the 31st of August 2022, directly supports Dr Malhotra’s claims.

But just in case there’s any confusion, let’s be clear on the math...

The reported excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest equates to exactly what Dr Malhotra says – a serious adverse event rate of 1-in-800 (10,000 divided by 12.5 = 800).

For the record: 1-in-800 is not as “rare” as the fact checkers keep trying to tell us. Rare events occur with a very low frequency. Rare events or side effects are those which are only reported in isolated events. Celine Dion’s Stiff Person Syndrome (SPS) diagnosis is a one-in-a-million event... I think that is an adequate definition for rare.

By comparison, 1-in-800 is actually 1250 of these “rare” one-in-a-million events.

So... not so rare then eh?

What did The Guardian say?

The Guardian’s hit piece told the reader that scientists and experts were up in arms over the claims made in the interview - and the fact that the BBC aired it (forgetting that it occured on live TV) at all.

They ignored the fact that for most of the interview he said the things they wanted him to say. They ignored the fact that he specifically said he did not want the information to ‘scare the viewer’. And they, like Full Fact, ignored the fact that he said that he felt the vaccines had helped people who were at high risk.


But I wondered how many of these ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ they would actually name… and what might be lurking in their closets

The BBC used the Science Media Centre to send an email yesterday seeking exactly what they wanted – retributory and opposing responses to the comments Dr Malhotra made during his interview. For those who don’t know, the Science Media Centre is funded by:

  • left-wing organisations including the Wellcome Trust and the Covid-19 Vaccine Media Hub,
  • members of the Mainstream Media including the Financial Times and News UK,
  • pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and representatives including GE Healthcare, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, Merke Sharpe & Dohme (MSD), Roche, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.


Practically every university in the UK who have had prominent covidian researchers in left-wing communist-led organisations like iSAGE and relying on grants from the Wellcome Trust, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or Pharma companies - chest-beating in favour of harsh lockdowns, masks and vaccine mandates for all, including:

  • Queen Mary University of London – Deepti Gurdisani,
  • University of Oxford – Trish Greenhalgh,
  • University College London – Susan Michie and Christina Pagel,
  • University of Edinburgh – Marc Dweck
  • University of Cambridge – Tolullah Oni, and
  • University of Leeds - Stephen Griffin

Remember the names in bold… You’ll be seeing those names again in a minute.

So… Science Media Centre are totally impartial... right?

While The Guardian article expends 5 paragraphs disparaging Dr Malhotra and putatively commenting on what amounted to about 30 seconds of an 8 minute BBC-led interview, it only provides four names to represent the so-called ‘scientists and experts’.

Let’s have a look at who these scientists and experts were, and you can judge just how fair and unbiased their opinions were.

  • Marc Dweck – a cardiology professor from the University of Edinburgh who has previously accepted funding and speakers ‘fees’ from Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. Marc seemed to have prescient knowledge that there was going to be a need to look for a Covid-19 based explanation for an increase in heart conditions in the months after Pfizer started their questionable 40,000 person clinical trial. Marc got himself a grant from the British Heart Foundation - even though there was no appreciable rise in heart problems at the time, and started an investigation to create smoke by claiming Covid-19 was causing these then, barely existent, issues. Then, as the vaccines rolled out and the myo- and pericarditis problems started, he was out front and ready to tell you ‘it was covid!’. Marc has also worked on research and published several papers with Giorgos Papanastasiou from the Pfizer Centre for Digital Innovation.

So… One was in SAGE, another in the communist-led Independent SAGE (iSAGE), two have deep ties into Pfizer, and all of them have spoken out in favour of one or more of: strict social distancing, mask mandates, strict lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and in favour of the vaccines generally.

Do they seem like a fair and balanced empanelment?

I would ask where the fair and balanced journalism is… but the last almost three years has shown me it is nowhere near anything that looks or smells like the mainstream media.

By Mr Law, Health and Technology



Latest news & random rants