Why I still haven’t taken the Covid-19 jab and accept the label of anti – (these injections) – vaxxer – Dr Nathi Mdladla

Frequent critic of the Covid 19 vaccination policy, Dr Nathi Mdladla, delves into how his distrust of the injections came to be, which he believes are novel therapeutics with still as yet no proven evidence of efficacy but with serious debilitating side-effects for some people. He details being given the label “anti-vaxxer”, a term that was only useful for shutting down debate and gaslighting those who had valid concerns and requiring clarification before taking an uncertain experimental product eventually led to an acceptance of the term. Dr Mdladla gives a stirring analysis of the current world of medicine and data,  a tool used to manipulate the direction of narratives depending on who is paying for it. He believes doctors, as the main group with the relevant knowledge to challenge and ask for reasonable and more nuanced approaches to the pandemic, were silent – opening up a gap for politicians, unscrupulous business people and corrupt big corporates to channel and direct how a medical emergency could be managed to suit their interests. – Asime Nyide

By Dr Nathi Mdladla*

The gaslighting against those who challenged the narrative around the COVID-19 injections has been so aggressive and personal, to the extent of tearing families apart and making colleagues enemies of each other unnecessarily, for a medical product that is still to this day under investigation (experimentation). The root cause for this was the religious fervour with which the injections were adopted by some before they were even on the market. There was an unprecedented  fanatical take on these products reminiscent of the  Steve Jobs era at Apple when a new version of the iPhone was to be launched! 

Background 

Being a medical skeptic, I was highly skeptical of these particular vaccines while the original Pfizer trials were being run in 2020 for various reasons:

• Vaccines against respiratory viruses never reached more than 60% efficacy  against preventing infection before COVID-19 for many reasons with the main one being the high mutability within these viruses; 
• There has never been a safe successful vaccine against the SARS-Cov1 virus of 2003, a it was pulled out of the market in spite of proven efficacy in animals but a high adverse event rate
• Immunity gained from the original SARS-1 virus infection was proven to be robust and durable for more than a decade after exposure to that virus in those tested

The fact of the matter is nobody could have predicted with certainty what these new vaccines would achieve irrespective on what platform they were built on, in 2020. What we had learnt before was the obvious guide, with the natural assumption that it would take years to come up with an effective vaccine that had few serious  side effects. Most of the initial “blind adopters” were only using faith and non-critical outlook for the COVID-19 vaccines, in their adoption and recommendation. When it came to the mRNA vaccines, one needed to be even more cautious and highly skeptical because they were built on a new platform  hitherto unknown and targeting one part of the virus (the spike protein) that was erroneously deemed to be a clear target for neutralising the SARS-CoV2 virus. The mRNA injections have gone to be the most favoured injections all over the world because of their purported higher efficacy at preventing infections of >95%, from the initial Pfizer and Moderna trials. Yet these particular injections have been marred with controversy from the outset, with Pfizer refusing to divulge their raw data to scientists  looking to make sense of their “impossible” >95% efficacy against infection, which was more than double of whatever we had been able to achieve prior to COVID-19.

The other often missed fact by those either outside of medicine or those within medicine (who are not skeptics) was how much investment had gone into vaccines for various other ailments including cancers prior to 2019 and the challenges  these new vaccines often faced. A new platform like the mRNA one and all other vaccines studied under EUA’s, would mean less time on tedious animal experiments (with often poor results), leading to massive financial savings in research and drug development for the manufacturers: This was an obvious opportunity created by COVID-19 and exploited by those with a financial bias as governments were scrambling to fast-track the adoption of whatever drug that was available and deemed effective against SARS-CoV2. Vaccines soon took the Messianic label and position as the only way we would end the pandemic !

Initial optimism drowned by emerging evidence

By November 2020, a new variant called Beta was sequenced and declared by  South Africa first, but an earlier mutation could have been circulating even earlier in the UK as the Kent Variant subsequently dubbed the alpha variant became dominant in that county. Even in the US, there had been documentation of some variants that were deviating from the original Wuhan virus in the early North American winter as the vaccine studies were under way. 

With the emergence of variants, which was what we had always known about most respiratory viruses that cause seasonal flu, my first concerns about whatever was being developed at “speed”, was the natural concern that they should be less effective against variants, as whatever vaccine was in the market and being developed at that stage was to the Wuhan Virus. I in fact posed this question to one of South Africa’s leading vaccinologists and the head of our medical research council. Virology 101 dictated that “when a virus mutates, the vaccine made to that virus will be less effective”. The latter is what we have known for decades of virology and immunology, the question being why would this one differ? What I appreciated was the response I got from this scientist – “the spike protein is a few acid bases, we therefore don’t expect it to change that much” meaning the vaccines would retain efficacy. She however followed this up with this – “but we don’t know…”. That last sentence said everything for me – nobody knew, so naturally everyone who either recommended or did not recommend these new vaccines needed to clearly state what was known or not known to their patients; with the patient ultimately making the final call on the balance of provided evidence.

The emergence of mutations was my first dampener of enthusiasm for vaccines as the only solution to the end the pandemic. The Beta Wave of COVID-19 in Dec 2020 was also much more significant for my ICU at Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital, to the extent that I felt desperate for anything that could help limit hospitalisation and deaths. This is when I started looking at available repurposed therapies that had promise with treating late COVID-19,  which led me on the Ivermectin trail of evidence and soon I was linked with physicians that were treating COVID-19 early in the out-of-hospital setting, and some who were treating late COVID-19 with great success. What I was beginning to learn in Dec 2020 and January 2021 was that we had a highly treatable respiratory illness that needed a thinking out-of-the-box mentality, with physicians sharing their observations timely to limit unnecessary patient deaths. From January 2021 we adopted the use of some of the available protocols from colleagues all over the world albeit haphazardly but with exciting outcomes in those we tried them on.

At this stage it became clear to me that with every “flu season” to come in future, and with the next one being predictably coming in June 2021 in South Africa, we needed to be looking at all available avenues for treating this respiratory illness – effective repurposed therapies and early treatment protocols seemed a cheap and obvious goal to me. Vaccines under investigation held some promise but we needed more evidence to balance their need versus their adverse event profile. So from the beginning I sought to try and determine who should be receiving these injections and this was my guiding principle based on what I had observed treating outpatients and those with severe disease in the hospital:

• Those with proven previous infection to SARS-CoV2 did NOT need to be vaccinated 
• The young (<30) with no comorbidities did NOT need to take an experimental injection with uncertain future outcomes when the disease was less significant for them in the majority
• The elderly with comorbidities should have been prioritized with the usual standing informed consent, none should have been coerced or forced to take it.
• The known ethical principles  enshrined in the Helsinki Declaration needed to be adhered to bearing in mind we hard a treatable disease with a very low mortality rate, until we got to really know what the efficacy of this “miracle drug” would be and what it’s challenges would be! 
  • Primum non-nocere (first do no harm)
  • Beneficence (benefit for the individual and community)
  • Non-maleficence
  • Informed consent

My Individual choice

Right from the beginning when there was news that Pfizer had started a human trial  and rollout of its candidate vaccine in Israel , I decided I was going to forgo this injection for a number of reasons:

• I was a healthy non-overweight 46 year old male = low risk for severe disease and death
• I had COVID-19 in August 2020 – treated it intensely with regular flu medications for two days at home and was back working in a COVID ICU at Day 3
• My infection-acquired immunity should have put me in a better position against future infections 
• There could be no benefit for me in taking the injection but could be exposed to all of the  unknown and still to be studied adverse events

As the results from Israel started coming out, an obvious picture of vaccination drives followed by COVID-19 surges of cases and deaths was clear as day. This begged of another question – “why were highly vaccinating nations experiencing high infection rates? Was it a direct vaccine effect (spike toxicity), a significant weakening of immunity making patients susceptible to both influenza and SARS-CoV2 infections, or another acute event that resulted in debilitation with a positive swab at admission to hospital. Pfizer’s data was too sketchy and not easy to interpret without raw data to make sense of what was happening in Israel, and subsequently Seychelles , Peru, Gibraltar, UAE and many other countries that early on adopted COVID-19 vaccines and mandated them aggressively.

A picture was clearly emerging from the world – there was something seriously wrong with the first injection of the mRNA vaccine with many coming down with acute events and something resembling COVID-19. The second injection did not seem to be as deleterious but the problem was that the stats produced to understand adjacent causality to the vaccines were masked (probably deliberately) by the definition of “vaccinated/fully vaccinated”. This definition had nothing to do with medicine but clearly with what was convenient to the manufacturers of these products. For the mRNA vaccines for an example – it didn’t matter what happened to you for >8weeks from your first injection (or two weeks after your second injection) as you were deemed unvaccinated until the time to maximum antibody response/formation after the second one. This was too long a time period for a pandemic that seemed to have a middle aggressive two week period, and lasting approximately a month. This long period for determining vaccine efficacy was clearly prone towards exaggerating efficacy while downplaying adverse events by manipulating end-points. 

The watershed moment

February 7^th  2021 was the eve of the rollout of the OXFORD ASTRA-ZENECA (OA-Z) vaccine in South Africa. There was high anticipation for Day 1 of the rollout on the following day Monday the 8^th. Then an article out of the Financial Times was published overnight on the 6^th and I was sent an early copy anonymously late in the evening quoting a South African trial that spelled doom for our rollout. This article confirmed what I had feared in Dec 2020 – this particular vaccine was only 12% effective against infection in the South African population. This for me called into question all the available vaccines modelled on neutralising the spike protein. In my clinical mind, this meant OA-Z could not be rolled out, and more importantly South Africa and the world needed to be more circumspect in making financial commitments in COVID-19 vaccine contracts. 

This watershed moment dictated my change in description for these so-called vaccines to therapeutic injections – for myself “if they were not stopping infection, nor stoping spread – they were no longer vaccines”. Strangely enough this was the first time I got to hear that vaccines in 2021 were “only supposed to prevent severe disease requiring hospitalisation and death” and that “breakthroughs infections” were no cause for alarm! This, in spite of the knowledge that these vaccines had to prove a >50% efficacy to reduce transmission for emergency use authorisation to be granted. This for me meant the injections were not doing anything different to what other repurposed therapies purported to reduce infection, limit severe disease and death were doing. Therefore they should have been put into a category of novel drugs meant to limit the severity of COVID-19 and not stop the spread of disease eg. Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and monoclonal antibodies. 

I sent this Financial Times article to a WhatsApp group of influential people that included the then MoH Dr Zweli Mkhize, the Head of the MAC on COVID, various vaccinologists, Big Tech players, lobbyists and advisors to the government around 23:00 on the 6^th of February 2021. This was a very active group, but for more than 16hours no response message was posted on the group.  A scramble ensued documented elsewhere resulting in an emergency media statement and meeting at 20:00 on the 7^th of February where the challenge with OA-Z trial  was mentioned and the proposed Phase 1B J&J Trial for healthcare workers that was going to be launched as the initial “rollout” for South Africa. Politicians could save face as there would be “a rollout” and Big Tech and other lobbyists, some of whom had skin in the game like Sisonke, could then get funding to run studies on the J&J vaccine. Pfizer’s  study in SA was run by Pfizer themselves, meaning none of the data on their product would be published without their blessing or being overseen by their employees.

A scramble to be at the front of the queue 

When the J&J Phase 1-B Trial was being run on healthcare workers, something unethical emerged with no shame from perpetrators to observers! I had worked in a COVID-19 ICU for two waves already, mostly not wearing PPE because I did not believe in its efficacy in the hospital setting of late COVID-19, and because I believed my infection acquired immunity stood me in a better position than what the vaccine could achieve for me. I also believed for the low risk individuals whether previously infected or not, infection immunity was still more sensible – it could save the country spending more money unnecessarily and would ensure the avoidance of yet unknown but emerging adverse events internationally. 

Yet, while high risk healthcare workers were being enrolled in the  “study”, those at low risk or had been infected already, were either jumping the queue ahead of other high risk colleagues and sneaking in office staff and family relatives who were low risk – for an experimental drug with no proven efficacy or know adverse events. To me this spelt in full detail the observation from March 2020, when the healthcare professionals endorsed and supported lockdowns for a low risk population of South Africa, for a disease that was clearly not going to be an issue worst than a bad seasonal flu back then and has been proven such to this day to be so. 

While the J&J Trial was afoot, Pfizer stock had already made it into the country under some study protocols. Certain people with connections started accessing these vaccines unofficially even if they were not  part of the studies, and some business people either accessed these in the country trough connections or went overseas where they could get these through arrangements. This was before the ramp-up of the general population vaccination drive initially targeting high at risk individuals even commenced in South Africa, beginning in June 2021.. 

At about this time (between the second wave and the upcoming winter wave of 2021) I was invited to be on one of the Working Streams of the Vaccine Ministerial Advisory Committee on Vaccine Rollout. One thing that was clear on these meetings was that SA did not have enough money to vaccinate everyone. It was clear though that we did not need to vaccinate everyone – community clinic studies had already shown >80% infection rate   in poor communities, the profile of those at high risk was clear and they are the ones that should have been prioritised using limited tax-payer money. With the clear lack of efficacy in preventing infections in studies to date, the choice to get the injections should have been left to the individual and physicians and clinical workers told the relevant known information at that point. 

Within the first weeks of the J&J Trial, we started getting stories in the early COVID Treatment community:

• Thrombosis events were the first to come up with the J&J injection – either as transient mild events of overnight blurring of vision to full-blown neurological fallout (strokes), deep vein thrombosis with pulmonary embolism
• Flu-like illnesses out of season and admissions of recently vaccinated patients with COVID-19
• Other ill-defined ailments with swelling of limbs, face and just general non-wellbeing 

What was more worrying to us was that these people were often turned away from the clinics they were vaccinated at, with their details and complaints either not captured nor taken seriously. The staff at these clinics and hospitals (if they were able to access that level of care), often told them that it was impossible that whatever they were experiencing could be due to the “vaccine” as this was deemed “safe and effective” by the WHO, government agencies and top scientists. The system that had told these people to take the experimental injections was not listening to those suffering nor suggesting potential therapies to help them with their complications. Once again the early treating physicians and naturopaths who have never shied away from helping desperate patients during the initial phases of COVID-19, where no solutions were offered except to “go to home to isolate and only go to hospital when blue and unable to breathe”, had to find original non-protocol based solutions for managing we would eventually dub “spike-protein toxicity syndrome”

When my 70 year old aunt, who is like a mother to me, asked me if she should take the vaccine  or not in August  2021 as she was having a lot of pressure from the grandchildren, I gave her my “balanced view” as informed consent, and left the choice to her. She was at high risk from multiple fronts, with the additional emotional pressure of having lost her daughter to complications of the virus 6 months prior. She was scared to take it and asked me for my opinion. This is what I said to her then – “you are high risk for severe disease if you have not had the infection already (she lived with her daughter and chances are  she had it and survived it already), and the concerning side effects so far seem to be in the 40-55 year old females for the J&J vaccine with regards to clotting complications and for teenagers with the mRNA vaccine with regards to myocarditis. There are other concerns for your population age but we are watching and still monitoring everything”. On my advice, she decided she would take the vaccine based on the informed consent I provided and the balance of outcomes. 

A few weeks after her first dose of the mRNA vaccine she messaged me again and informed me that although she had been suffering from headaches before the vaccine, these had become more frequent and more intense. Her blood pressure which was under control was also now a challenge to control. Her exact words were – “I would rather get COVID and take my chances than having to endure what I am experiencing after the first injection” She got COVID a few months later after her first injection (she never went back for the second dose)  and I treated her through a local GP with repurposed drugs and she made an uneventful recovery.

The subsequent emerging evidence and my conviction I had made the right decision 

From December 2020 – all available vaccines were to the spike protein of the original Wuhan virus which had mutated by the late winter of 2020 in Northern Hemisphere countries, and noted as Beta in the summer flu season of December 2020 in South Africa. All the vaccines getting emergency use authorization (EUA’s) by 2020 were already out of date for the circulating variants. The boosters that came beyond May 2021 were containing the same mRNA to the Wuhan strain until the current bivalent boosters – which still target the original (extinct mild Wuhan strain) and the even milder and also extinct Omicron from Dec 2021.

Almost all of the in-vivo studies looking at vaccine and booster efficacy initially looked at antibody levels after the injection or booster, besides this parameter telling us nothing about infection prevention against circulating variants. The results of these studies informed the adoption by major agencies like the FDA and CDC for EUA’s in even less at risk groups and for more boosters.  As many countries follow the lead from the FDA/CDC, this  informed the adoption by these  other agencies of all the flawed recommendations coming from these agencies, including SAHPRA in South Africa. The problem is that these studies failed  to meet clinical proof of efficacy, by failing to explain why with so many billions if not more of antibodies circulating in the bloodstream, people with up to 4 boosters and a recent bivalent booster are still getting infected and infecting others? If the antibody response was effective, these people should not get infections and should not be vessels of infection, something that even all the major COVID injection pushers had to admit at some point from Bill Gates to Albert Bourla. 

The original two dose Pfizer vaccine efficacy eventually also dwindled to less than 12%  – placebo should be 30% effective. Subsequent studies have only been playing a game of “musical chairs”, with your last booster (delayed by a period convenient to the manufacturer dictating who is boosted or not) which once more serves to only exaggerate the efficacy of subsequent injections while downplaying adverse events.

It has now become common knowledge that none of these injections are safe, something NOBODY should have declared as fact in 2020/2021 – yet it was the mantra of almost every politician on earth! Nobody can say a pharmaceutical compound is “safe” without qualifying what that means. When it comes to adverse events, the problem becomes the noise signal of minor events which underlie major events. A headache or blurring of vision for an unknown therapy where a mechanism for that symptom is unknown, should never be dismissed as minor when it is known that some people eventually have central vein thrombosis (and strokes) and some die suddenly in their sleep with no autopsy proof of what caused the death.

The same applies to cases of myocarditis experienced by teenagers and mostly young men. What presents clinically is a tip of an iceberg for what is in the community. Worst so for underdeveloped nations with poor access to specialist cardiology care and hospital screening for such problems like in SA. To mandate such therapies when one can not ensure proper follow up and support of those affected, is not only unethical in terms of the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, but is outright criminal in terms of the Nuremberg Code of 1947. Yet we had university professors   from top medical institutions in this country and abroad weighing in and supporting a narrative  that sought to mandate, force and deny human rights to individuals for an experimental product backed by huge funding and lobbying even at the highest echelons of government. This they did without allowing diverse voices to weigh in for a balanced judgement and outcome. 

How I was forced to be “anti-these-COVID-vaccines”

I have been called an anti-vaxxer by top university professors (almost uniformly on Big Tech payrolls) from the time I asked questions about these vaccines before Delta in 2021, and have ever since been thrown into the bin of conspiracy theorists and tin-hat wearing anti-science individuals. I initially tried to deny the  “anti-vaxxer” label as derogatory and unfounded as I was a person that appreciated how limited respiratory virus vaccines were before COVID-19, but had taken a flu vaccine and convinced all our hospital staff to do the same in May/June 2020 so that we would not confuse COVID with the regular flu. I have taken all my other recommended childhood vaccines (obviously not by choice) and all other recommended adult vaccines for healthcare workers including Hepatitis B. It soon became apparent though that this term was only useful for shutting down debate and gaslighting those who had valid concerns and requiring clarification before taking an uncertain experimental product.

 COVID-19 injections are not vaccines irrespective of the manipulated change in definition made by the WHO. They are novel therapeutics with still as yet no proven evidence of efficacy but with serious debilitating side effects for some people. They have predictably not ended the pandemic in the most highly vaccinated countries in over two years of availability and in some comities mandatory requirement. The more worrying concern raised by Geert van den Bossche to the WHO in March 2021 was the dangers of massive vaccination in the midst of a raging pandemic with regards of immune pressure and mutations. Even the WSJ recently published an article asking if this was indeed what we were observing with the recent major outbreak in China and the emergence of the recent XBB strain and other variants driving waves of infection in the US. 

The high rates of excess mortalities in highly vaccinated countries that are not due to COVID-19 have been another issue raising further questions about the contribution of these injections into this phenomenon. Lockdowns definitely could have a contribution considering the warnings the likes of the Great Barrington Declaration  made around the collateral damage of such measures for a respiratory virus. But there’s an undeniable and often-talked about increase in sudden deaths that coincided with the major vaccine drives in almost every country and perpetuated by frequent boosting in the developed nations. Sudden deaths in the young are at an all-time high, insurance claims and payouts for significant debilitation and death not related to COVID infection are at an all-time where they are documented in developed nations. In South Africa, Discovery, the biggest insurer and medical funder has alluded to a similar picture  for 2021/22 for their members when COVID was at it’s mildest in South Africa

What South Africa’s data should be teaching the world

It is unfortunate that data these days is a tool used to manipulate the direction of narratives depending on who is paying for it. From the early days of lockdowns, modellers had to align with a government narrative, otherwise they lost their contracts. Predicting the worst outcomes and advising more stringent regulations was the bread and butter of modellers. It kept them in the game, and all they had to do subsequently was collaborating with other desperate/greedy scientists seeking relevance or funding to publish supportive narratives of the success of the initial model and how many lives have been saved even with weak proof. The journals and mainstream media publications where all of this information is propagated without question, abrogated their role as independent promulgators of messages and information when they decided to align and not allow contradictory views. They saw themselves as defenders of a funded narrative as they themselves received funding if they aligned with what was considered a stance of the WHO, government and captured top scientists, irrespective of the clear conflicts of interest each of those organisations and individuals had.

South Africa has a contingency of the best Grade A scientists in the world, we have a reputable base of world class researchers studying a majority of vulnerable people who either don’t know their rights or are unable to get the compensation they require for misadventures. Like many developing nations including India and other parts of Africa, we provide the best in human experiments for Big Tech companies. If things go awry, they will not have to pay as much compensation as they would have to pay in their home countries. Yet, with the deliberate direction and obfuscation of compromising data, these countries can produce the best data supporting safety and efficacy of these products.

With all our top scientists, there is an anomaly as to why  no major scientist would venture to analyse and publish a hypothesis on mainstream media explaining why since Dec 2021 with dwindling COVID-19 vaccination,  South Africa has been seeing a significant decline in COVID-related admissions and deaths? Booster uptake for the single dose J&J and double-dose Pfizer vaccines  declined to <6% by the Omicron wave of Dec 2021. With some people still due for their first booster, and some on their second/third and probably due for a bivalent booster, the rate of uptake is probably close to <1%. With this low uptake of vaccines and boosters, one would expect an overwhelming of hospitals and an increase in COVID deaths. Instead the Delta surge which coincided with the mRNA injection drive was explained as simply a normal COVID surge with no possible allusion and implication on the contribution of a novel therapy that was pushed aggressively on the populace on the verge of a flu season.

South Africa’s data is a clear example of what these injections are doing:

• Vaccinations drives are associated with COVID-19 infection “spikes” and wave prolongation – is this a problem of the spike protein directly or immune system blunting from the production of antibodies to extinct virus strains
• Excess deaths NOT due to COVID-19 have multiple possible contributory factors, but the coincidence of an increase in sudden deaths from cardiovascular events in the young, when there is now a known mechanism related to the injections should be part of the differential diagnosis. Who is happening to in South Africa?
• Thrombosis related complications, initially related to the viral vector vaccines from J&J and OA-Z have contributed significantly into minor and severe delayed complications related to thrombosis which have not always been admitted by authorities or researchers. Have these dwindled or increasing in SA and in whom?
• The manifestation of signs of immune suppression either from reactivation of Zoster and other normally immune suppressed infections, could be in part an explanation for the emergence of highly aggressive new cancers and reactivations in those in remission as the same immune response to infections also fights cancer cells

South Africa has lessons to share with the world but unfortunately the best investment Big Tech made was to capture top scientists and top institutions. They serve at their behest with progressively weak/corrupted ethics committees, regulatory and supervisory boards. The chance that we’ll ever get a raw independent analysis and outlay of what our numbers mean, will never emanate from a top university nor will it be published in any major peer reviewed journal in this country. The public is essentially on its own based on recent events.

Conclusion

Something happened in 2020 – and along the way medicine was hijacked for purposes beyond handling a viral pandemic. Doctors as the main group with the real relevant knowledge to challenge and ask for reasonable and more nuanced approaches to the pandemic were silent, which opened up a gap for politicians, unscrupulous business people and corrupt big corporates to channel and direct how a medical emergency should be managed to suite their interests. In this blind pursuit for power and quick profits, a lot of damage has been done to the ethical foundations of medicine that have taken more than six decades to build. The confidence in the profession has been threatened numerous times, from the medical atrocities of Nazi Germany through to Tuskegee . That past history informed many of the principles that were formulated and adopted around the protection of human rights foremost with the rights to bodily autonomy and personal decision being paramount. How we could so easily disregard the past for a single disease with no real existential threat to humans, should be a stern warning going forward on the fragility of our institutions to protect human rights.. 

The COVID-19 vaccine narrative has made me question everything I had assumed as fact and concluded with all other vaccines. What I am finding is uncomfortable, and  as someone who believes that all science should be questioned and as long as there is an alternative more convincing hypothesis to the prevailing one,  it should always be entertained. Dismissing alternative theories and hypothesis with sound fundamentals, is the real “anti-science” promulgated by those who believe in concluded science as if it is a religion.

There were too many questions around the COVID-19 vaccines from December 2020, with prior concerns emanating from the 2003 SARS vaccines being the initial warning.  The long decades of knowledge from dealing with other respiratory viruses, and the challenges with creating effective vaccines for these should have better informed how we handled the current “pandemic”. More focused and nuanced approaches in adopting new technologies based on a balance of known and emerging science against risk would have been more meaningful in a reflective society. 

I am personally glad to never taking any of these products; I am ashamed at my profession and government agencies that have forced many to endure officially sanctioned gaslighting, relegation to second class citizens through mandates and forced inoculation and being cancelled for standing for a truly scientific discourse of questioning science and never accepting it as gospel truth. The shortsighted approach taken in forcing an experimental intervention on people has unfortunately backfired significantly to the extent that I am definitively never taking any of the COVID-19 vaccines going forward until there is clear proof of a balance of benefit against risk, and this will go for all other respiratory virus vaccines as well.  

Dr Nathi Mdladla is a former Associate Professor and Chief of ICU at The Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital and Sefako Makgatho University, where he worked as a clinical lead in the COVID-19 ICU through 3-waves. He is heavily involved in the outpatient treatment of COVID-19, with more than a 1200 patients treated to date. He served in various committees and advisory institutions on COVID, from the initial Gauteng Province Critical Care Guidelines Committee and later on on one of the Vaccine Ministerial Committee Work-streams on Vaccine Rollout.  He has critically appraised all strategies around COVID-19 from lockdowns, to treatment approaches and universal forced vaccinations. He currently works in private practice as a cardiac anaesthesiologist involved in both paediatric and adult care of patients with cardiac problems. 

Read Also:

• Discovery sticks to Covid-19 guns: ‘Vaccines are safe and effective’
• Scientific proof of cancer surge in younger adults, explosive cancer relapses after receiving COVID shots
• COVID crimes: Part 1 – how lockdown compliance set the stage for gross abuse of power