From a statement by the British Heart Foundation:
We do not recognise these claims and strongly refute all allegations made about colleagues in seniour leadership roles within the British Heart Foundation (BHF).
…We would encourage those making these serious allegations to share specific, credible information with us which supports them…
The BHF is here responding a claim made by Andrew Bridgen MP in Parliament last night that someone with “a prominent leadership role with the British Heart Foundation” is the lead at a cardiology research department that “is covering up clear data that reveals that the mRNA vaccine increases inflammation of the heart arteries”. This was based on the word of a unnamed “whistleblower”; Bridgen did not go into specific details, and it appears that he has made no attempt to raise the matter privately anywhere.
Bridgen was speaking as part of an adjournment debate he had called on the subject of “Vaccines: Potential Harms“. He put great emphasis on claims made by Aseem Malhotra, and it is likely that Malhotra and his circle provided Bridgen’s talking points. Malhotra also attended in person, and a photo shows him posing with Bridgen on the House of Commons Terrace. With typical modesty, Malhotra Tweeted that the speech in which he was commended by Bridgen was “the most important parliamentary speech you will see”. Malhotra was previously at Parliament a few weeks ago, having been invited to an event by Christopher Chope MP.
As is well known, Malhotra recently published a review essay in a lesser-known medical journal in which he made extraordinary claims about the prevalence of Covid vaccination harms, based largely on personal anecdotes and his interpretation of statistics (not his field). The essay (which appeared in two parts) was peer reviewed, and his supporters believe that this amounts to scientific canonisation. Bridgen asserted that “there has so far not been a single rebuttal of Dr Malhotra’s findings in the scientific literature”, presumably discounting out of hand the exhaustive enumerations of his work’s shortcomings made by various scientists (e.g here and here, as well as a Health Feedback critique).
Bridgen also stated – while giving a false impression that he was now referring to a different paper – that it had been
accepted by a peer-reviewed medical journal that one of the country’s most respected and decorated general practitioners, the honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association and the Labour party’s doctor of the year, Dr Kailash Chand, likely suffered a cardiac arrest and was tragically killed by the Pfizer vaccine six months after his second dose, through a mechanism that rapidly accelerates heart disease.
Chand was actually Malhotra’s father, and this narrative of his demise features in his paper. However, Malhotra provided zero evidence of any such “mechanism”, and the speculation is fantastical. Bridgen’s presentation of this detail is disingenuous and I would say verges on misleading parliament. It must also be noted (albeit reluctantly, for reasons of taste) that Malhotra has so far failed to clarify whether his father shared his controversial views about diet and avoiding statins, which may be more pertinent to understanding why Chand died (and why Malhotra is so desperate for it to be someone else’s fault).
However, despite leaning heavily on Malhotra’s credentials as a “peer-reviewed” authority, Bridgen also suggested that the vaccines are unsafe because scientific research in general is in a poor state:
In 2015 a commentary by Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, suggested that possibly half of the published medical literature “may simply be untrue”. He wrote that “science has taken a turn toward darkness”, and asked who is going to take the first step to clean up the system. (1)
Also:
Furthermore, the former editor of The BMJ, Richard Smith, claims that research misconduct is rife and is not effectively being tackled in the UK institutions, stating: “Something is rotten in…British medicine and has been for a long time”.
Those two items can be seen here and here. Ironically, the various shortcomings and problems outlined by Horton actually explain how Malhotra got his essay into print:
In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours… Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations.
Malhotra’s self-marketing has been largely organised by one James Freeman (formerly known as “James Wells”), a former Brexit Party MEP who makes regular appearances on conspiracy podcasts (such as here with David Icke’s son Gareth). Following Bridgen’s speech, Freeman Tweeted at the CEO of the British Heart Foundation, demanding to know “Were you aware of this @iCharmaine?” Predictably, his many followers have chimed in with more explicit allegations of wrongdoing and corruption.
Others who have enjoyed Andrew Bridgen’s confidence in recent years include disgraced former chief constable Mike Veale, convicted stalker Alex Belfield, and (apparently) Satanic Ritual Abuse obsessive Jon Wedger.
UPDATE: Jon Bye has a more detailed breakdown of Bridgen’s speech, noting that the anecdote about a “whistleblower” appears to have been taken directly from Malhotra.
Also (links click through to the Tweets, where there are also screenshots of sources):
Bridgen directly quotes Malhotra’s paper, saying that the absolute risk reduction during the Pfizer trials was only 0.84%.
But this was over a short period during which prevalence of the virus was relatively low. So largely irrelevant by the time it was rolled out.
Bridgen falsely claims that covid vaccines give “no protection against infection at all”, and ignores all the studies showing there’s more than just “hope” that they “protect us from serious illness and death”. He caps this by citing “real world data” from .. HART.
Having wrongly dismissed “the benefits of the vaccine” as “close to non-existent”, Bridgen cribs from Malhotra’s paper again, this time making questionable claims about how common serious adverse effects are, and citing a paper co-authored by Peter Doshi.
Bridgen repeats Malhotra’s unevidenced claim that his father was “killed by the Pfizer vaccine”, before blaming “many” other cardiac arrests on covid vaccines. This is based on more HART data, and an FOI request that says completely the opposite to what Malhotra claims.
For variety, Bridgen also quotes an earlier article by Malhotra, suggesting the MHRA has conflicts of interest because it’s mostly funded by (registration fees paid by) the pharmaceutical industry, even quoting the exact same passages from an article by Donald Light.
Then it’s back to Malhotra’s “paper”, as Bridgen cites an “investigation” (by HART’s Zoe Harcombe) into the JCVI and its (indirect) links to conspiracy theorist favourite Bill Gates, before saying big pharma “has been described as psychopathic” (by .. er .. Malhotra).
Note
1. Hansard currently misspells Horton as “Richard Houghton”. He recently attended a lecture given by Malhotra at Friends’ Meeting House in London, and his urbane account can be read here. He wrote:
Malhotra’s method of argument deserves scrutiny to understand why it persuades some people. Frame one’s view as the reluctant endpoint of a personal journey. Quote respected scientists. Stand up to corporates. Place oneself firmly on the side of patients. Emphasise well described concerns about the presentation of research evidence. Allude to correlations. Make the call for access to raw data an issue of trust and transparency.
He then noted some audience interjections, including an extravagant “bioweapon” claims. In his view: “This descent into unreason is what happens when you inflame public anxieties”.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »
