British Medical Journal's editor Dr. Peter Doshi raises alarming questions About COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Concerns; BY ARJUN WALIA NOVEMBER 2, 2022

by Paul Alexander

  • The Facts:

    • In a recent interview with German TV, senior editor at the British Medical Journal Dr. Peter Doshi expressed that that “Our legacy media has not done a good job in providing balanced coverage about the vaccines."

    • He emphasized how "we're not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit."

  • Reflect On:

    • With so many scientists, doctors and published peer-reviewed science raising concerns, why haven't these concerns been properly communicated to the citizenry?

    • Why has there been such a big campaign to censor these concerns and deem them a "conspiracy theory?"

    • Why have pharmaceutical companies not released all the data they accumulated during their clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines?

Doshi was part of an international group of eminent academics and physicians who went back and analyzed safety data from the original clinical trials that were the backbone of the FDA’s decision to authorize the mRNA vaccines in December 2020.  It was published in the peer-reviewed journalVaccine in September 2022.

The analysis showed that mRNA vaccines were associated with 1 additional serious adverse event for every 800 people vaccinated. This would normally have a vaccine taken off the market, and is in sharp contrast to the idea that serious adverse events are extremely rare as federal health regulatory agencies have commonly claimed with regards to COVID-19 vaccines. The authors also found that the trial data showed that the increase in serious adverse events following mRNA vaccination surpassed the reduction in risk of ending up hospitalized with COVID-19.’


“It was very unfortunate, that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty…but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns. We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people…I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”