Unsafe And Defective – Covid Vaccine Mandates And Lack Of Transparency On Vaccine Safety Has Fuelled Distrust –

An Apology To Vaccine Injured Patients And The Public Is Overdue 

Leading international scientists call for government and medical bodies to publicly apologise to vaccine injured patients, the public and whistle blowing doctors for covid vaccine mandates 

• Research reveals that the covid vaccine mandates have fuelled distrust and reduced uptake of vital traditional vaccines and fuelled “conspiracy theories” 
• Evidence on covid vaccines have evolved from “safe and effective” to “unsafe and defective” with five potential mechanisms that covid mrna vaccines can precipitate cancer
• We are facing a pandemic of the vaccine injured with possibilty that hundreds of thousands of americans killed from covid mrna vaccine in 2021 alone
• A global moratorium on covid mrna vaccines needs to take place until the evidence of benefits and harms is independently evaluated. 
• Calls supported by leading international oncologist, vaccine developer, immunolgist and psychologist

Leading international scientists have supported calls for government and medical bodies to apologise to patients, the public and “truth seeking” doctors for the implementation of COVID vaccine mandates that have fuelled distrust and conspiracy theories.

Published in the peer reviewed journal “Science, Public Health Policy and the Law,” Cardiologist, Chief Medical Advisor to Make Europe Healthy Again and Medical Advisor to MAHA Action, and eminent Research Psychologist Dr Andrea Lamont Nazarenko call upon the public health establishment to address the shortcomings of COVID-era public policy and acknowledge the wrongdoings by apologizing to the public. 

As Vaccine Injury Awareness month kicks off, the two doctors boldly state, “until the most urgent questions are answered, nothing less than a global moratorium on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines—coupled with formal, unequivocal apologies from governments and medical bodies for mandates and for silencing truth seekers—will suffice.” 

In their commentary, titled, “Mandates and Lack of Transparency on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety has Fuelled Distrust – An Apology to Patients is Long Overdue”, the scientists tackle the issue of distrust in the medical industry, a trend that has grown consistently since the pandemic. 

They state, “The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how far the field has drifted from (its) roots of a science in service of the people. Ethical dilemmas, coercive policies, and a lack of transparency undermined public trust, while corporate and political interests increasingly shaped decisions at the expense of open science. The result has been an erosion of legitimacy and a widening gap between public health authorities and the people they serve”

They contend that “science must remain the foundation of public health, with its core processes—debate, testing, and falsification—driving all decision making. The pandemic demonstrated that when scientific integrity is lacking and dissent is suppressed, unethical decision-making can become legitimized. When this happens, public confidence in health authorities erodes.”

The perspective of Malhotra & Lamont directly contradicts the mainstream belief that problem of mistrust stems from “disinformation” and conspiracies promoted on social media. They use data to argue that public distrust derives from the lack of scientific integrity demonstrated by public health authorities during the pandemic – and this lack of evidence-informed policy making led to harms.

The authors state, “it is understandable that, in the early days of the pandemic, decisions were made under uncertainty—guided by the best evidence available at the time; however, such justification cannot extend indefinitely. Once new evidence emerged that challenged initial assumptions about the benefits and risks, the ethical obligation was to reassess policy accordingly… Within six months of roll-out, safety signals emerged, yet policies and recommendations largely persisted.”

Malhotra & Lamont state that “if science is truly to guide public health, then policies and mandates must change as the evidence changes, especially as risks stack up. To ignore this is not only anti-scientific, but ethically indefensible.”

Censorship & Defamation

One of the issues the authors tackle is that of censorship and propaganda. They fearlessly observe that professionals (e.g., doctors, scientists, attorneys) who spoke out for science were personally defamed and targeted. Classic propaganda was used to silence and dissuade dissent. 

Specifically, the article describes how corporations and regulatory bodies exert their power through a process known as opposition fragmentation, which they describe as “deliberate or induced division of adversarial actors, weakening their capacity to mobilize collective action.” 

They courageously point out that “contemporary public health often substitutes condemnation for curiosity, marginalizing dissent even when data warrant debate. Suppression may quiet critics, but it suffocates science… Questioning is not hostility to science; it is fidelity to it.”  

Malhotra & Lamont describe how silencing ultimately affects patients, stating that the defamation behaviour shows “a systemic pattern in public health of silencing opposition rather than engaging evidence… The role of public health is not to override individual clinical judgment or the ethics that govern medical decision‐making. This is essential because what once appeared self-evident can, on further testing, prove false – and what may appear to be “safe and effective” for one individual may be harmful to another.”

It also affects society at large. Malhotra & Lamont state that “such unethical behaviour doesn’t just silence voices—it reshapes what is accepted as truth.”

Malhotra & Lamont firmly call for an apology to doctors and scientists who were unjustly shunned, lost jobs, and were defamed personally for merely seeking the truth. 

A Path Forward

“The urgent task now is how to restore trust in healthcare. We are facing what some may call a pandemic of the vaccine injured. The focus on the broader healthcare system should be how to identify and intervene with those asymptomatic individuals who may be at risk of premature heart disease and cancer due to poor policy decisions” they write 

Importantly, the article is not merely a reflection on the past. The authors offer the solution, “to rebuild legitimacy, institutions must recommit to ethical principles that serve the people—not political or corporate interests… we must go back to the basic ethical principles of individualized medicine and reestablish systems that work together in ethical ways that serve the people.” 

They acknowledge the major psychological barriers to restoring trust, stating that when harms are publicly acknowledged, “the greater barrier will be psychological, not scientific,” and call for a preparation on our social systems for the fallout. 

“(We must be ready to) respond with clarity and compassion.”

Ultimately, they state that, “restoring legitimacy requires three concrete commitments: full transparency of data, independent evaluation of evidence, and accountability through both policy change and public acknowledgment of harm. Only then can the long work of rebuilding public trust truly begin.”

Expert reaction: 

Mattias Desmet, Professor of clinical psychology at the university of Ghent, Belgium and best-selling author of The Psychology of Totalitarianism said,  

“This article describes the true tragedy that emerged during the corona-crisis: society has placed its fate in the hands of a science that is no longer a science; a science that lost all sense of truth” 

Professor Angus Dalgleish, Emeritus Professor of Oncology, St George’s University Hospital said, 

“As soon as the data that the COVID vaccines were not preventing infection became clear and the narrative moved to preventing hospital admission and death, I warned that failure to be truthful would fatally compromise the national vaccination programme including MMR. Unfortunately, this advice seems to have been buried with one NHS director informing me that the Department Of Health actively recommended ignoring any adverse comments that might undermine confidence in the vaccination programme. 

Well, we are now paying the price with a dramatic collapse in uptake in all vaccines. This article is a scholarly and timely review of the public health principles that have been so clearly ignored and traduced.Without a complete apology and explanation we are doomed to pay the price for failure to take up the few vaccines that make a highly significant contribution to public health”

Dr Nikolai Petrovsky, Emeritus Professor, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia and Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease, Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, Adelaide, Australia said, 

“It might be impossible to go back in time and correct these major public health failings, which included support of futile and damaging vaccine mandates and lockdowns and provision of unsupported false and misleading claims regarding knowledge of vaccine efficacy and safety, but to start rebuilding public confidence in health authorities the starting point, as suggested by Malhotra and Nazarenko, must be full and frank admissions by health authorities of their culpability in these misguided actions, following by evidence that policies and procedures are now in place that prevent any likelihood of a repetition of all these public health mistakes in future outbreaks”

Robert Clancy, Emeritus Professor of Clinical Immunology, University of Newcastle’s School of Biomedical Sciences, Australia, said, 

“The call for transparency, independent evaluation, and accountability to provide for a return to science-based public health followed by respect and trust within the population, is critical to health and social well-being. 

An apology from government and health services for mandates, lockdowns and their trashing of those brave enough to call them out, though needed, may take a little longer”

The full article which will be published online on Thursday October 9^th October 1700hrs EST and 2200hrs GMT at www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com