Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

originally posted by: Kurokage
Dr Aseem Malhotra recently lost his father to heart failure, which pretty much says it all and were his bias comes from when he wrote the piece, he was double vaccinated and hasn't said anything for 2 years.

He is also a stronger believer in dietary treatments to fix medical aliments. He has a number of books and programs for sale to help solve your X disease with a smoothie blend.

I have had a sense he is after self-enrichment from vulnerable people.

a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's a narrative review.

He even admits to personal bias in it.

None of what you are claiming is true. Where does he say he has a personal bias??

His work was submitted on the 10th of June and was published on the 26th of September after going through peer-review. It was published on the Journal of Insulin Resistance.

Your argument that this hasn't been peer reviewed is false.

At the beginning you claimed that Dr Malhotra was expressing personal opinions without publishing anything.

I showed you that he has published work and he is a top scientist by the way.

Then you upgraded your claim this isn't a peer reviewed publication. But this is false as you can see.

Now you are going further to say he is biased and he promotes a narrative....

I think these are desperate attempts.

Better leave it as you have lost the argument.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

Even more credibility loss if you chose to get interviewed on GB news.

originally posted by: Kurokage
Dr Aseem Malhotra recently lost his father to heart failure, which pretty much says it all and were his bias comes from when he wrote the piece, he was double vaccinated and hasn't said anything for 2 years.

This is a motivation and not a bias which triggered him to look at the evidence and not promote any political and pharmaceutical narrative. You just have to listen to his interview. He was promoting vaccinations for all but without any evidence as he says. Just as many others have done in the last two years.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

He talks shouting his 'harrowing personal journey' in the review.

No scientific detachment there.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

And how do you prove that the vaccine caused your death weeks/months later?.

Aside from the fact that they do trials for this, where the people who are vaxed report any problems that they have, you mean?

In most cases it's pretty obvious because the person goes into Anaphylaxis very quickly. It's why you're often required to wait 10-15 minutes after you have a vaccination. In a serious case a person won't even make it out of the room.

After this, they rely on established reporting mechanisms and statistical analysis. For example, if somebody is rushed in with a heart problem, they will ask a series of question which is normally when a person would tell them that they'd recently been vaxxed. This gets logged. If several people come in with the same problem it gets flagged, then usually the CDC would get involved.

The same is true with people's regular providers. If they get several people in with the same problem after being vaxxed it gets flagged, then the CDC get's involved.

Most vax break down naturally in the body, so reactions after a week are rare, and after a month are even rarer, because there isn't any vax left to react to.

I know of at least 2 young men (24 and 38) and one woman 52 who have died within hours of vaccination

Then I would suggest that you're looking for a serial killer using the vax system to choose their victims, because the statistical odds of so many people dying at all from the vax, let alone from the same cause in such a short space of time, are astronomical. The odds of you knowing them ... are beyond astronomical.

As far as I know, neither family has even pursued a claim.

Your local coroner would have reported this to the CDC as part of their standard procedure, because it's so unusual.

They have simply accepted the narrative of natural causes.

Presumably they didn't mention that they lost family on their social media, or didn't start up a gofundme to cover expenses? Or literally anything that you could use to show that these people were ever alive?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

I agree to a point. I am all for capital gain, but I temper this by applying my own ethics and morality. For example, I am fine with a physician expanding their practice to become specialized in a certain treatment and pioneering new technologies or medical procedures, and making more profit through their practice or licensed technology. I am however not alright with profiteering from fear and uncertainty. For example, selling books about how established medical practices are all fake, while at the same time selling their own alternative medicine products. Greasy.

I see that you guys are desperately trying to attack him at a personal level which is proves the absence of any valid and good arguments from your side. It's exactly what you find when matters of science are blended with politics and instead of vaccines and public health we get vaccine ideology promoters.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

Even more credibility loss if you chose to get interviewed on GB news.

GB news is legally required to tell the truth. It was one of the conditions placed on them when they were allotted a channel on the broadcast TV system in the UK.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I see that you guys are desperately trying to attack him at a personal level which is proves the absence of any valid and good arguments from your side. It's exactly what you find when matters of science are blended with politics and instead of vaccines and public health we get vaccine ideology promoters.

Its pointing out if isn't resesrch, its his personal view.

As such his motivations are entirely relevant.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

Even more credibility loss if you chose to get interviewed on GB news.

GB news is legally required to tell the truth. It was one of the conditions placed on them when they were allotted a channel on the broadcast TV system in the UK.

I tend to go with Andrew Neil's judgement on its quality.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

Should I take this personally?

It's pretty common for academics to write books. So long as you declare your interests and clear it with whatever ethics committee, you're answerable to there isn't usually a problem.

Would you say that a historian had a conflict of interest if they wrote a couple of books covering their digs or their research areas?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I see that you guys are desperately trying to attack him at a personal level which is proves the absence of any valid and good arguments from your side. It's exactly what you find when matters of science are blended with politics and instead of vaccines and public health we get vaccine ideology promoters.

Its pointing out if isn't resesrch, its his personal view.

As such his motivations are entirely relevant.

A peer reviewed publication in a journal like the one I mentioned is far from a personal view.
It makes his position even stronger as he was promoting mass vaccinations two years ago but reality and evidence suggested otherwise.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If your books tend to promote non conventional medical treatments/diets then I think papers challenging the orthodox at least need to be viewed with some cynicism.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Being published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't change its not a study or research.

Have you read it?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I see that you guys are desperately trying to attack him at a personal level which is proves the absence of any valid and good arguments from your side. It's exactly what you find when matters of science are blended with politics and instead of vaccines and public health we get vaccine ideology promoters.

But his personal views and leanings are surely reason to view his opinion piece, and thats all it is, a biased opinion piece because there's no real data in it and he does sell books on diet.

This is the final conclussion/contribution..

This article highlights the importance of addressing metabolic health to reduce chronic disease and that insulin resistance is also a major risk factor for poor outcomes from COVID-19.

edit on 2-10-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)

Are you a scientist or doctor who is also a paid author selling books and using your professional status to sell books that may go against the mainstream narrative for profit?

If so then how you take it is up to you but I'm personally going to find it harder to take your professional option at face value if you are.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Overseeall

I'm not going to comment on his ideology or work but I do find it hard to accept the medical advice of any doctor or scientist who is also a paid author.

It's a conflict of interest that is bound to cause problems.

Should I take this personally?

It's pretty common for academics to write books. So long as you declare your interests and clear it with whatever ethics committee, you're answerable to there isn't usually a problem.

Would you say that a historian had a conflict of interest if they wrote a couple of books covering their digs or their research areas?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

First, I support your point about capital gains as long as they are morally and ethically acceptable. This ofcourse is a whole debate unto itself.

I had to jump on this point for the fun of it;

Would you say that a historian had a conflict of interest if they wrote a couple of books covering their digs or their research areas?

This is a sticky question. May I answer your question with a question? Do historians frame their historical account of events along certain ideologies, beliefs, biases, or restrictions to ensure their publication?

I would also add that a historian cannot directly affect the health choices and implications of people.

It's not the best comparison in this case.


a reply to: Overseeall