Dr. Naomi Wolf recently defended her presentation of scientific findings on Pfizer’s vaccine, which was compiled by experts and exposed serious adverse effects. She appeared in London and challenged Ofcom’s “conspiracy theorist” label, emphasizing the importance of factual reporting and cautioning against censorship that stifles critical health information and public discourse.

Wolf is a prominent American author, journalist, and feminist known for influential works like “The Beauty Myth” and “The End of America.” A Yale and Oxford alumna, she advocates for women’s rights and civil liberties, though recent controversies surround her views on vaccines and pandemic policies.

Wolf, in her defense, mentioned that the material she presented on Mark Steyn’s TV show, for which she is being censored. was compiled by the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis research team. This team comprises 3,250 highly credentialed doctors and scientists who reviewed 450,000 internal Pfizer documents released under a court order. These documents, dating from November 2020 to February 2021, include detailed reports on serious adverse effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Wolf emphasized that she is a non-fiction writer and journalist, not a medical doctor or scientist and that her role was to report the findings of this expert team.

Ofcom is short for the Office of Communications, the United Kingdom’s communications regulator. It oversees TV and radio broadcasting, telecommunications, postal services, and wireless communications. Ofcom claims that it ensures that the public receives a wide range of electronic communications services, including maintaining standards in broadcasting to protect audiences from harmful or offensive material.

Ofcom concluded that Wolf’s presentation of information about the Pfizer vaccine on Mark Steyn’s TV show in October 2022 caused “harm.” They referred to her as a “conspiracy theorist” in public documents, using this characterization as part of their decision to penalize Steyn for airing the segment where she presented her evidence.

Watch footage of Wolf in front of the Royal Court:

Statement of Dr. Naomi Wolf to the Royal Courts of Justice, London, United Kingdom
“I am here today because Ofcom, the media watchdog agency, concluded that my presentation of information from scientific reports about the Pfizer injection, on Mark Steyn’s TV show in October… pic.twitter.com/4wf7TBaRB1

— Camus (@newstart_2024) June 17, 2024

Steyn posted comments about the Ofcom situation, slamming the institution and calling for them to be put out of business, on his social media:

Why do I think the UK state censor @Ofcom should be put out of business?

Because there are very few areas of British life that this strange, secretive body does not “regulate”. Take, for example, this current UK election campaign, which the media are keen to keep as a torpid… https://t.co/j1tuTeTG6V

— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) June 17, 2024

Wolf’s full comments:

“I am here today because Ofcom, the media watchdog agency, concluded that my presentation of information from scientific reports about the Pfizer injection, on Mark Steyn’s TV show in October 2022, caused "harm.” Ofcom also referred to me in public documents as a "conspiracy theorist,” using that discrediting characterisation of my work, as part of its decision to penalise Steyn for airing the show in which I brought forth the evidence I did.

I wish to describe to the court please the nature of the evidence I presented on GB News. I then wish to describe my credentials, and lastly, I wish to make some points about the history of censorship.

The material I described to Mark Steyn is not my work. I am a non-fiction writer and journalist. I am not a medical doctor or a scientist. The material I presented is from scientific reports compiled by 3,250 highly credentialled doctors and scientists, the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis research team (see addendum), that convened from 2021 to the present, to read through and issue reports based upon the 450,000 internal documents released under court order due to a successful lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration by US attorney Aaron Siri. These are internal Pfizer documents submitted to the FDA for the purpose of securing the Emergency Use Authorisation that allowed for the rollout in the US of an experimental injection that bypassed normal trials. They are primary internal documents produced by Pfizer-BioNTech, that date from November 2020 to February 2021 and that record the 43,000 plus adverse events and more than 1,220 deaths recorded by Pfizer in those three months.

The documents go into detail about serious side effects and explain their mechanisms; the Pfizer documents contain internal reports on stroke, liver damage, kidney damage, many forms of blood clotting and blood damage (including the thrombotic thrombocytopenia that recently triggered the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK in 2024; we broke that story in 2022); many neurological events including dementias, epilepsies and Guillain-Barre syndromes, and serious respiratory issues.

The documents include a section in which 80 per cent of the pregnant women lost their babies and another section in which two babies’ deaths in utero were due to "maternal exposure” to the vaccine, in Pfizer’s words. There is a great deal of information in the Pfizer documents, including charts, showing damage to women’s menstrual cycles, including serious damage such as haemorrhaging, passing tissue and bleeding every day. There is documentation of lipid nanoparticles (the fatty casing for the mRNA) accumulating in the ovaries of women — more with each injection. There is documentation of damage to babies from nursing from vaccinated mothers and of one baby who died of multi-organ system failure after ingesting a vaccinated mom’s breast milk. The Pfizer documents contain a warning to vaccinated men not to have intercourse with women of childbearing age. These are just some of the findings that our doctors and scientists summarized in their now 104 reports.

Ofcom seeks to portray this material as "harmful.” But can findings be "harmful” if they are true? I am a reporter and I base my opinion on facts….”

WOLF IS NOT BACKING DOWN

In her ongoing advocacy, Wolf has confronted historic challenges, yet she remains a resilient advocate for free speech and factual reporting.

Wolf’s response to the Royal court proves her steadfast commitment to defending civil liberties and challenging censorship.

Watch  for more context:

Hearts of Oak: Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf in the UK High Court fighting against Media Censorship