DA Western Cape’s Beverley Schäfer under whip after asking UK anti-vaxxer to speak at legislature

Shäfer was obviously channeling Beetroot-Tshabalala-Msimang. Again the DA shoots itself in the foot.

Storm in a teacup ! Whatever happened to freedom of speech ?

While I understood to some degree the position to not spread fear or misinformation during the actual COVID pandemic, we are now way past the pandemic and it should be absolutely permissible to have a open discussion about it and the vaccine. Whether the DA championing such a viewpoint is a smart political move or not is a different matter (I also think they are idiots as this fallout was to be expected) However, the vehemence of those opposing any such discussions, down to the ad hominem attacks on anyone even considering it, is very concerning. When did we get to a point where the mere suggestion of a discussion of a topic leads to such intolerance? Surely if it's all just conspiracy theories the true facts should speak for themselves?

Why the hysterical push to silence debate on a topic. Surely there is enough evidence to be questioning the efficacy of Covid vaccines. In my immediate family the only one hospitalised with Covid HAD been vaccinated whilst those unvaccinated easily recovered.

Free speech has limits: you can't shout fire in a theatre. Anti-vaxxers are linked to other conspiracy theories and extreme views. What next? The Flat Earth Society? Their beliefs have done far less damage than the anti-vaxxers. Please remember the mad Trumpian anti-vax crew cost many lives because they believed what was said. No credibility to should be given to extremist views, and I include the anti-science conspiracy crowd in this definition. A serious lack of judgement on display by Ms Schafer.

Hard to comment without having heard the talk. If Dr Malhotra really claimed that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus, I can understand the backlash. However, the pro-vaccine and pro-mandates camp has a lot to answer for, so open discussions like this exploring the evidence from all sides are very necessary. There is plenty of evidence now that the manufacturer's claims of efficacy and safety were exaggerated (or worse, perhaps deliberately falsified) and these claims of efficacy and safety were repeated ad nauseum by the media and by governments to justify mandatory vaccination policies, which should have been condemned in the strongest possible terms from the start. My December 2021 article in BizNews on the case against mandatory vaccines outlines in detail why. And this was written before the subsequent revelations from Pfizer. There are many doctors who have seen the adverse effects and heart damage done by these jabs, and now advise their patients against taking these vaccines unless you're in the high risk category. My own GP is among them. Those who would shut down this discussion and distance themselves from it should consider speaking to some of these healthcare professionals who now caution against these vaccines, and be prepared to listen with an open mind.

To really get to the truth, you need both sides of the story! As one who has suffered heart problems that seemed to get worse after the vaccine, I’m interested to know the truth. The 3 years of COVID have really taken their toll on us all - previously confident people have become socially fearful, young people have been committing suicide, dementia/ brain fog and memory loss are being experienced on a scale never previously seen…so something is up and we really need to get to the bottom of it. Is it just timing and mental health issues due to lockdown? Is it the actual virus? Or is it the vaccine? We need to know so we can deal with the cause and the symptoms. In my opinion.

Just the use of the term anti-vaxxer is misinformation in this instance. Anti-vaxxers are opposed to any vaccination. This is not the case here. Also, it leaves a lot to be desired when the media does not honestly report on the serious debate and concerns in the medical and scientific community that is ongoing around these vaccines. They were rushed through because of circumstances where the world was unprepared for the virus and in the middle of a pandemic. The normal development times and procedures were not followed with these vaccines. Therefore, their long-term health impacts could not be properly accessed. There is no pandemic now. It is time to have the debate now. It is time to do the investigation which was not done properly due to the circumstances. But, unfortunately, the articles, the government officials, and even the duped public just spout like little big pharma microphones. Not prepared to stop and think for a moment. It is a shame.

Fellow readers, ignorance is bliss. So, I attended a talk by Dr Malhotra last night to make up my own mind. He is double vaccinated. He did so as it appeared very early on to be a sensible way to protect his patients. He is pro vaccines in general. He publicly advocated for people to get the jab on Good Morning Britain, to an audience of tens of millions. He encouraged a friend in a high risk category to get the jab - she being the acclaimed director of 'Bend It Like Beckham' and he publicly via social media stood by his advice to her, when she herself had been skeptical about getting the vaccine. He is not an anti-vaxxer. His turning point was the death by cardiac arrest of his 73 year old general practitioner of a father, after his second jab. A very fit man who had an objective medical record of the health of his heart prior to getting the jab. So that when Dr. Malhotra ordered a post mortem on his dad, it revealed significant inflammation [if I recall correctly the term he used] of his coronary arteries; ones which had been diagnosed as perfectly normal prior to getting the Covid mRNA jabs. i.e. the arterial damage had occurred out of all character with his general health and in just the 3 months since getting the jab. From this point, Dr Malhotra began to interrogate the trial data on which the mRNA jabs were given emergency use authorization and systematically found claims of their efficacy and safety to be a house of cards he felt compelled to disclose. There it is.

The DA harbours an ivermectin constituency. The same bunch that is pushing it to the right and responsible for its lack of attraction as a serious contender.