Discover more from News Uncut: Straight Talk, Hard Truths
Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion: The story behind the film
Quite simply: We need to know the truth
By Mark Sharman
JOHN WATT enjoyed the gym, played golf, boxed a few rounds – and this year he was due to be married. Instead he spends most of his time in bed. “I can’t live my life like this,” he says, “I’m only 36 years of age.”
John (below) has POTS, postural tachycardia syndrome, which means that his heart rate soars and he gets impossibly dizzy every time he stands up. It is just one of the effects he has experienced since taking his Pfizer Covid booster jab.
Alex Mitchell (below) has lost his left leg and is losing sight in his right eye. “Thank you Astrazeneca,” he says. “It’s the gift that keeps on giving.”
Caroline Pover (below) discovered that phlebotomy eases her symptoms, so she has learned how to take her own blood in a desperate attempt to stave off more than 40 vaccine-induced symptoms: “I didn’t feel like living when things were at their worst.”
Charlotte Wright lost her 32-year-old husband when an Astrazeneca jab caused a stroke. And as a young doctor’s widow with two children, she was forced to live on benefits and visit a food bank until Government compensation came through.
These are just some of the people featured in a new one-hour documentary by Oracle Films and News Uncut, available from 7pm today (September 28th) at Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion
It is called Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion and leads with consultant cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra calling for all Covid jabs to be suspended until data can be independently analysed. His peer-reviewed and published paper concludes that for any healthy person under 70 the Covid jabs are likely to cause more harm than good.
The programme, presented by actor John Bowe, was created to give the vaccine-injured a voice. Too often their conditions are dismissed as “imagined” or “all in your head” by NHS staff, who refuse to accept that the jabs can do harm. The physical pain is one thing, the mental anguish and frustration another.
All of these people thought they were doing the right thing in following Government advice. But as fellow sufferer Georgia Segal says: “I took one for the team and now the team has run in the opposite direction.”
Georgia is now registered disabled.
As well as personal stories, the programme looks at how the word ‘vaccine’ brought false confidence, how the trials were flawed and how doctors did not inform themselves about the mRNA jabs, let alone inform their patients.
Some, it is alleged, were taking their information from the BBC. It also looks at the role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the influence of the SAGE behavioural scientists, how ‘unethical’ practices were used to enforce compliance with lockdowns and the vaccine roll-out, and how the media told only one side of the story.
The BBC, for example, admit on-air that it is their editorial policy not to debate with anti-vaxxers, ‘whether they are right or wrong’. The very term anti-vaxxers is unfair and derogatory as it is wrongly applied to anyone who reasonably chose not to get this experimental jab until they had more information.
They were labelled ‘nut-jobs’ by Boris Johnson and ‘idiots’ by Tony Blair, yet time and experience suggests the dissenters may have been right all along, as the jabs clearly do not prevent infection or transmission.
The common stance taken by broadcasters, newspapers and the big tech companies is of particular concern, because free speech and open debate is being stifled; esteemed scientists and doctors are being silenced and smeared, just because they are questioning the official narrative.
As John Bowe concludes: “A proper debate might have led to better informed choice on vaccines. And potentially less injuries. Instead we have been subjected to psychological pressure under that dubious mantra, Safe and Effective. Proper, balanced science must come to a sound conclusion. We need to know the truth.”