(LifeSiteNews) —A newly released documentary that has been praised as “brilliant” and “outstanding,” chronicles the shocking story of how COVID shots were pushed in the United Kingdom using government propaganda and misleading data from Big Pharma.
While the film, aptly titled, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion,” is primarily focused on the U.K., one of its most powerful sub-narratives is relevant worldwide: How pharmaceutical manufacturers sidestepped safety hurdles and misled the public regarding the effectiveness and potential harms of the COVID jabs.
The documentary uses expert testimony to show how the trial data was flawed, and how the “vaccine” manufacturers used “very, very misleading” figures to promote the COVID-19 shot.
Consultant cardiologistDr. Aseem Malhotra, who was “one of the first to take the Pfizer vaccine,” shared how Pfizer’s promotion of its shot using relative risk reduction, and not absolute risk reduction, led to the impression that the mRNA COVID shot was dramatically more effective at preventing disease than was actually the case.
“The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversation with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone. Otherwise, it’s considered unethical,” Malhotra explained.
“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,” said John Bowe,founder of C.O.V.I.D. Charity Organisation for the Vaccine InjureD.
The film went on to highlight the “shocking allegations” of clinical trial research specialist Alexandra Latypova, who studied Pfizer trial documents that were force-released in the U.S. after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Among her findings were the following:
- “Pfizer skipped major categories of safety testing altogether.
- The toxicity of the COVID-19 vaccines’ mRNA active ingredient was never studied.
- The FDA and Pfizer knew about major toxicities associated with gene therapy class of medicines.
- The CDC, FDA and Pfizer lied about vaccines 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.”
Worsening the problem of woefully inadequate studies was a disruption of the ordinary regulation process, Bowe explained. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Chief Executive June Raine had “admitted that the agency had changed from Watchdog to Enabler.”
The film highlighted video footage in which Raine confessed that normal safeguards in the clinical trials for “vaccines” had been discarded for the COVID jabs: “We tore up the rule book and we allowed companies to immediately start juxtaposing not sequential phases of clinical trials, but overlapping. Beginning the next one before the previous had been finished.”
Furthermore, a huge conflict of interest was posed by the finding that “86% of the funding of the MHRA comes from the drug industry,” according to Malhotra.
The film went on to highlight heart-tugging stories of COVID jab injuries, which in some cases shattered the lives of the victims, making them almost entirely dependent on caregivers for day-to-day living.
MP Sir Christopher Ghope protested in parliament that doctors have proceeded to add insult to injury in these unfortunate cases by consistently dismissing the jabs as a possible causal factor:
Those who were in perfect health before their vaccine have encountered too much ignorance and skepticism when seeking medical help. For some, their GP’s have refused to engage and that has reached the extent that they are made to feel gaslighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, with their physical pain being dismissed or explained away as mental illness. How insulting and humiliating is that?
Another key piece ofthe documentary was its demonstration of how the UK government scandalously coordinated propaganda to promote the COVID jab. It showed screenshots of actual instructions from a “playbook” of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which explicitly instructed, “Use [of the] media to increase [a] sense of personal threat,” to achieve government aims during COVID-19, among other things.
“Immediately,” the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, “asked broadcasters to take note of the significant potential harm that could be caused by material misleadingness in relation to the virus or public policy regarding it,” Bowe said.
“They warned of taking appropriate regulatory action on any breaches,” he continued, pointing out that this warning was issued “the same day” the above-mentioned SAGE document “was approved.”
Following this series of events, a BBC reporter was shown publicly stating, “Just to let you in on a journalistic point here. We actually don’t, as a matter of editorial policy, we don’t debate with anti-vaxxers, whether they’re right or wrong. We actually don’t do that.”
Watch “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” for freehere.