The global public has been assured
COVID-19 jabs are safe and effective — but as deaths and disabilities
mount, it’s time for a second opinion. In Safe and Effective: A Second
Opinion, a documentary by Oracle Films, COVID-19 shot injuries and
deaths are highlighted, along with the systemic failings that allowed
them to happen.
Big Tech companies and the media only added to the scandal by
suppressing free speech and open debate on the shots. Cardiologist Dr.
Aseem Malhotra has spoken openly about the shots’ downfalls. He said in
the film:1
“Having been double jabbed and being one of the first
to take the Pfizer vaccine, I have — after several months critically
appraising the data, speaking to eminent scientists in Oxford, Stanford
and Harvard, speaking to two investigative medical journalists and being
contacted by two Pfizer whistleblowers — reluctantly concluded that
this vaccine is not completely safe and has unprecedented harms, which
leads me to conclude that it needs to be suspended until all the raw
data has been released for independent analysis.”
Giving a Voice to Those Injured by COVID Jabs
Federal governments have largely dismissed data suggesting COVID-19
shots cause harm. But the stories of those personally affected cannot be
denied. While Big Tech has tried to censor these stories and keep them
from getting out, eventually the truth will be heard. The film includes
several tragic stories of lives lost or forever changed by these
supposedly “safe” shots:
• Georgia Segal, 35 —
Collapsed after the second Pfizer jab, experienced ongoing tremors and
couldn’t walk properly without her legs giving out. As a result, she had
to use a walker and wheelchair. “I still suffer now; I suffer with a
lot of fainting. I suffer with my legs giving way as a result of the
damage that the vaccine has done to me. I've ended up registered
disabled.”2
• Alex Mitchell, 57 —
Experienced blood clots after his first AstraZeneca jab. He was
previously healthy. Doctors told him that the blood clots in his system
should have been fatal. He lost his left leg as a result and now uses a
wheelchair. “I’m now going blind in my right eye,” he said. “Thanks
AstraZeneca. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. That’s the honest
answer.”3
• Charlotte Wright — Her
husband Stephen, 32, died after his first AstraZeneca jab after
suffering from a stroke. She received a vaccine damage payment from the
British government, which accepts as some vindication. However, the
amount — £120,000 ($136,530) — isn’t nearly enough. She’s still awaiting
an inquest.
• Caroline Pover, 50 —
Experienced multiple symptoms after her first AstraZeneca jab. “Life has
completely changed. It's unrecognizable compared to how it was,” she
said.
“For about five months, I did hardly anything, I
couldn't function at all. I was exhausted constantly. I was in constant
pain. Head and eye pain was relentless. I couldn't function. I couldn't
walk very far. I couldn't read things … I had trouble processing
information …
And I didn't have any physical strength. I've now got
to the stage where I can function at about 30% of how I could function
before the vaccine. On a good day, I can maybe do a couple of hours in
the kitchen. But then after a while I have such chest pain that I have
to come and lie down.”4
Across the U.K. coroners have confirmed deaths linked to the shots.
“They are usually framed as very rare,” the film notes, “but how rare?”5
Adverse reactions are supposed to be reported to the Yellow Card scheme
operated by the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency (MHRA).
As of August 24, 2022, they reported 432,819 adverse reactions, of
which 2,240 were fatal. In the U.S., the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS) had received reports of 1,400,350 adverse reactions to
the shots as of September 2, 2022, including 30,796 fatalities.6
“Not all these reports will be confirmed as vaccine-induced,” the
film continued. “But then again, not all reactions are reported. The
figures surely demand investigation.”7 Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist, explained:8
“I don't think anybody can deny that there has been
harm. You can argue about how much, but you can't deny that there has
been harm. It’s just a scandal of such epic proportions that I think
people don't know where to begin with it. It's frightening to even
approach it.”
Sir Christopher Chope, Member of Parliament (MP) in the U.K. is
pursuing a bill to speed up compensation for victims and increase the
maximum amount from £120,000. He said:9
“Other jurisdictions have taken the view that … those
who do the right thing for public health reasons by having a bad
vaccine should be looked after by the state if the consequences of
having that vaccine result in disability or injury.
This approach is taken in order to promote vaccine
confidence amongst those who might otherwise be hesitant about having a
vaccine. This government's approach, however, seems to be to try and
promote vaccine confidence by covering up the adverse consequences for
some of having been vaccinated.”
Pfizer Shot — 119 People Jabbed to Prevent One COVID Case
One mechanism of harm from the mRNA COVID-19 shots is the delivery of
synthetic messenger RNA (mRNA) encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles that
forces the body’s cells to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which
vaccine developers initially stated would remain localized to the arm.
However, research shows that it actually migrates throughout the body to
every major organ system, causing direct toxicity and/or autoimmune
reactions.10
The development of the genetically engineered biological product was
fast-tracked at an unprecedented pace without long-term clinical trials
to assess the true extent and severity of adverse effects before the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna,
the two mRNA COVID shot manufacturers, an Emergency Use Authorization
(EUA) to distribute it.
At the same time, the U.S. and other governments indemnified the
manufacturers against any liability for deaths and injuries caused by
the COVID shots. In November 2020, Pfizer claimed their COVID-19 shot
was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and,
according to Malhotra, based on flawed methodology:11
“‘Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating
the benefits of any intervention … which would be in the interest of
people trying to sell you something — in this case, the pharmaceutical
industry.
So if, for example, you have 1,000 people in a trial
that didn't have the vaccine versus 1,000 people that did in the placebo
group … you may have two people dying. And in the intervention group,
you may have just one person dying. And that's a reduction of 50%. One
over two is a 50% relative risk reduction. But actually, you've only
saved one life out of 1,000.
So the absolute risk reduction is only 1 in 1,000.
It's a big difference. The guidance has been for many years that we must
always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not
just relative risk reduction alone; otherwise, it's considered
unethical,’ Malhotra said.
The accusation is that governments acted on Pfizer's
relative risk figure of 95% efficacy, when the absolute risk was a mere
0.84%. In other words, you'd have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent
just one from catching COVID. ‘So we were basically sold on something
that ultimately, and in retrospect now, was very, very misleading.’”
Raising more red flags, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and Pfizer attempted to hide the COVID-19 shot clinical trial data they
did have for 75 years. But the FDA was ordered by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas to release redacted versions of
trial documents on a much faster schedule. Alexandra Latypova, a
research specialist in clinical trials, is one of a group of experts who
studied the documents.
Her investigation revealed that Pfizer skipped major categories of
safety testing, and the toxicity of the mRNA shots was not studied. “The
FDA and Pfizer knew about major toxicities associated with the gene
therapy class of medicines. The CDC, FDA and Pfizer lied about vaccine
staying in the injection site. My examination of leaked Moderna
documents also revealed that vaccine-induced antibody-enhanced disease
was identified as a serious risk,” she said.12
Shots Saved 20 Million? ‘Implausible,’ ‘Science Fiction’
Instead of commenting on the controversies over the shots’
effectiveness and serious adverse effects, most scientists, governments
and media instead promote inaccurate and misleading information, such as
stating COVID-19 shots have saved at least 20 million lives. This
statistic is “science fiction, not scientific fact,” Malhotra said, as
it’s based on a poor-quality observational study.13
“When you look at a higher quality level of evidence, in fact, even
Pfizer's own randomized controlled trial didn't show any reduction in
COVID mortality of statistical significance,” Malhotra said. “It showed
no reduction in all-cause mortality. So this really this statement is
almost implausible. To be honest, it sounds more like an advert from the
drug industry than true science.”14
Meanwhile, the government continued to promote COVID-19 shots
aggressively, even after data showed the product did not prevent
infection or transmission — and the vast majority of the population
wasn’t at risk of serious illness.15
Even physicians who were typically pro-vaccination began to question
it. One consultant pediatrician who spoke in the film warned, “Children
are at low risk. They don’t need this vaccine, and the harms are real.”16
Data also show that deaths from any cause among 15- to 44-year-olds
in England and Wales increased significantly in 2021, the year COVID-19
shots became widely available. There have been concerning reports of
myocarditis (heart inflammation), including sudden deaths and collapse,
that have occurred in young people and athletes aged 18 to 24.17
Data from the Office of National Statistics also reveal that more
people than usual are dying in 2022. Deaths among 10- to 14-year-olds
increased 11.75%, while deaths among 55- to 59-year-olds rose 15%. The
film notes:18
“Overall, that could equate to over 75,000 excess
deaths in England and Wales this year, and not from COVID. The Daily
Telegraph is reporting the deaths in the aftermath of lockdown could be
greater than COVID itself.
There are calls for an investigation mentioning lack
of health care, stress, long COVID, even the cost of living. Why on
earth isn't COVID vaccination under suspicion when there are so many
reports of adverse reactions here and around the world?”
Psychological Techniques Used to Force Compliance
The U.K.’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had a
“nudge” unit, also known as SPI-B, that researched and analyzed options
for increasing adherence to COVID-19 social distancing and lockdown
measures.19
It discussed increasing the perceived level of personal threat using
“hard-hitting emotional messaging” and “social approval for desired
behaviors.”
The messaging must “emphasize and explain the duty to protect
others,” and actions framed “in terms of protecting oneself and the
community.” Those who don’t comply could be faced with fines and other
punishments.
“I think what's important to understand is, over the last two years,
there has been the promotion of unethical psychological techniques to
encourage behavioral change, such as the use of fear, artificially
increasing the sense of being afraid, in order to get people to change
their behaviors,” said Christian Buckland, a psychotherapist and
counselor.20
The only way out, the government said, was to get the shots. The
COVID-19 shot campaign went into overdrive, but when millions still
avoided them, the threats began. Without a COVID-19 shot, you could lose
your job, vaccine passports became required to go about daily life, and
anyone who spoke out against the shots was dubbed an anti-vaxxer.
Buckland continued:21
“When you use unethical psychology on a population,
you actually start to see splits and divisions occurring. And that's
really dangerous because you also encourage ‘othering,’ or the
demonization of people. So we see … not just fear being raised but also
anger being raised as well.”
When public protests and marches drawing thousands of people were
organized to speak out against the threats to personal freedom, the
media ignored the major events and even stated they would not debate
with “anti-vaxxers” — even if they were right.22
The Trusted News Initiative was formed, which included the BBC,
Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft, to stop the spread of
what the online platforms labeled “misinformation.”
“It sounds laudable,” the film notes. “But what it really means is
that governments, the media, and the big tech companies are working to a
common script, their script, their version of the truth … The real
truth is that anybody who questions the official narrative is generally
suppressed and canceled or labeled as a spreader of disinformation on
social media. And that includes eminent scientists, doctors and,
disgracefully, the vaccine injured.”23
Open Debate That Could Have Led to the Truth Suppressed
If open debate and the right to exercise voluntary, informed consent
to getting the COVID shots had been allowed, it would have potentially
resulted in fewer injuries. Instead, the population was subjected to
psychological manipulation in an attempt to perpetuate the false
assumption that the COVID shots are “safe and effective.” So what’s the
truth? The film wraps up with some sobering facts and statistics that
make it clear:24
- Between January 1 and May 31, 2022, 15,113 people died with COVID-19
in England — 90% of them had received at least one COVID-19 shot
- In 2021, Pfizer doubled its annual revenue to $81 billion — it’s 2022 annual revenue is expected to surpass $100 billion
- U.S. research revealed that up to 98 young people could be injured
by COVID-19 shots for every one prevented from hospitalization25 — one of the authors is the director of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Global Health Delivery
- A U.S. judge ruled that the White House must release correspondence
regarding a “massive censorship enterprise” with Big Tech; it’s alleged
that federal agencies communicated with social media companies to
suppress private speech during the pandemic