Dr. Paul 0:10
Could it be that our health freedom is truly under fire? Is it possible that our public health officials have been lying to us? How do we seek the truth when doctors have been led to believe in the marketing slogan, the vaccines are safe and effective. This show will highlight the importance of informed consent. I'm Dr. Paul Thomas, and welcome to against the wind, doctors and science under fire. All here welcome to episode eight of against the wind doctors in science under fire. We are focusing today on censorship. censorship is such an important topic because if we live in a society where you can no longer get access to information that those in power do not want you to have, then we're going down a very dangerous road. We share today interviews with one of my living heroes, Dr. Andy Wakefield. He shares his story so eloquently. This is a guy who was one of the top scientists in pediatric gastroenterology published a paper back in 1998. That said, basically, here's what I'm finding, there might be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Big money went after him and have they have continued to go after him to this day. We're talking two decades later, to make sure that he remains discredited. He's a gentleman he's a scholar, he's so wise, you're gonna want to hear his story. He gives a special take on it. In this interview with me. I'm then interviewing investigative journalist Jeremy Hammond. Jeremy is one of those few investigative journalists that's really doing a deep dive into vaccines. You've heard his story. I interviewed him before when he talked about what's happened in my own journey, which out of that came an entire book that's being published. But he has some unique perspective on censorship. I really asked him the hard questions, who's censoring us? Why are they're censoring us? And what can we do about it? You also get to hear a little bit again from Dr. Peter McCullough, he shared on the last show some amazing wisdom about COVID. And he has some very important thoughts about censorship. And this is a mainstream medical doctor. Realizing that there's an issue here with censorship, this is affecting all of us. Finally, I do share with you an amazing story from Cindy and her daughter, Grace, who after the 15 month vaccines had a severe seizure disorder that lasts To this day, I think it's under appreciated the extent to which vaccines are linked with seizures. The literature is clear that the MMR in particular has a much higher rate of seizures. And if you give the MMR V with the varicella combined with it, that seizure rate doubles from one in 5000 to one and 2500. So it's just something to be on your radar folks. It's not insignificant to live a life with lifelong seizures. And so I wanted you to have that story. Thanks for your attention. You're going to love this show. I'm Dr. Paul.
Hi, folks, Dr. Paul here from against the wind doctors in science under fire, you need to know about the members only area. So this is a way you can support the show. Because this show is not having any sponsorship whatsoever. We are beholden to no one. And the reason we can bring you information that you really aren't getting anywhere else is because it's supported by you, the viewers, what you get. However, in this membership section, for the first month, it's absolutely free. And after that for a good cup of coffee for 495. Here's what you get. I've written two amazing ebooks, we will have Q and A's live with me, we have transcripts of every episode, we have full episodes and other well edited episodes that are not in the main show. So you get exclusive content. And I will also be posting exclusive videos sort of from the cuff. When I have a thought that I just feel like I want the world to know about or if I read an article that it's like, wow, this is important people need to know about it. All of this will go in the members only section. So join the team against the wind be a part of the solution our world needs and sign up as a member and support our work.
So here we are. Hannah Maui, the folks who live in Hana about 800 people in total for decades of taking care of one another. Our tour guide actually said a lot of them don't even like each other, but they do take care of each other. I've been thinking a bit about their COVID journey that we've been on for the past year. And one of the struggles I've had is the sense of being coerced into doing something that maybe I don't feel is right for me. I feel like there A lot of pressure for a lot of people to get vaccinated. social pressure, if you will, I just want you to know that the decision is yours. We don't have all the information. But if you've had this vaccine, you don't need to go forward with regrets. People are fearful of visiting others who've been vaccinated because there's this new information there may be shedding people are fearful visiting relatives who have not been vaccinated. It's a great time to move away from fear folks, and be like the folks in Hana where whether we agree or not, we're going to stick together. We're going to work together when to get through this together. Well, I'll let you know I love you. And I'm happy that you're on this journey with us that against the wind. And I thank you for your attention and for your support.
Dr. Paul here, welcome to another episode of against the wind doctors in science under fire. It is my privilege today to bring to you my living hero, Dr. Andy Wakefield. Welcome to the show, Andy. Oh, it's great to be with you. You. Maybe you don't know that you're one of my heroes. But you absolutely. Are you your article that you published? I believe it was in 1998? Or was it 1999? Right. Yeah. And that I didn't read it for a couple years. It was just sitting on my desk. And I was a very busy pediatrician, I finally stumbled on that article. And it was like the first time as a young pediatrician, I'd been practicing maybe for 10 years at that point, or 15, that the thought occurred to me after reading that article, hmm. Vaccines might have something to do with autism, it was a complete awakening to the fact that maybe that was a possibility. And that was all you basically said in that article, it was very well written, you were presenting some cases. And youth have said something like there may be a connection, we need more research, wasn't that something like that? Exactly, exactly that. And then, of course, fast forward over two decades, you actually were a pioneer in the phenomenon that's now quite common of which I've become part of where, if you bring attention to anything negative about vaccines, you will get targeted. And they will come after you with a lot of force. So if you could share just for our viewers, and I know you must be tired of telling this story. But you can summarize it quickly if you like, what happened? What what, from your perspective, what happened? Because I know you were a very science oriented researcher at a top notch institution, you'd publish numerous articles, and then you publish this famous paper that ultimately I think wasn't a decade later was retracted. And I tell the story, as you remember it.
Dr. Andy Wakefield 8:04
Certainly I in a nutshell, I was entirely mean history knows, like you I trained as a surgeon. I was one of six generations of my family that trained at St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, which was part of the University of London. And I was very conventional. And what I mean by that, and that this is can get confused with what people call now mainstream medicine, I practiced medicine night training was to put the patient first above all other considerations. There was no equivocation, no ambiguity, that was the priority. And this was the way in which generations of my family have been raised in medicine as well and things were starting to change tangibly that there was a greater and greater influence of the pharmaceutical industry into medical training, and I resisted that I was not of no interest to me. So in 1995, I think it was May the 19th 1995 I got a call from my mother who said, my child was perfectly fine. I took him to have his MMR vaccine, measles, mumps, rubella vaccine on time. And he regressed immediately he had, he went to sleep for three days when he woke up, he was a different child. The light in his eyes had gone out, he stopped interacting with his sibling, he he was just different. And I said, Look, I know nothing about autism. When I was at medical school, we weren't taught about it. It was so rare one in 10,000. I didn't even know that number at the time. But we weren't talking about it. Other than a mention of the name perhaps and How can I help as a gastroenterologist because my interests were in inflammatory bowel disease, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, she said the reason I'm calling you, Dr. Wakefield is because my son has these terrible gastrointestinal problems. He has pain, bloating, failure to thrive. All of this was coincident with the regression into autism. And he's in pain. I know he's in pain, he's lost the ability to communicate. But his mother, I know that he's in terrible pain. And when I tell doctors about this, they say that's just part of autism and get over it, move on, put him in a home, have another child, I was terrible. I mean, I knew and I'm sure you've heard this story as well. And so I put together a team of researchers, including the world's leading pediatric gastroenterologist at the time, Professor john Walker Smith, who wrote the textbook that teachers, pediatric gastroenterologist around the world today. And we decided we needed to investigate these children based upon the parental story. The other thing she said is there is an epidemic of this particular type of autism, a normal child, an environmental exposure, often a vaccine, and then regression to autism, very unusual in the context of the historical pattern of autism, where apparently the child was never right from the beginning. So we scope these children and for the colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, and they had an inflammatory bowel disease, and it was subtle, it wasn't as Florida's Crohn's disease. But it was nonetheless real. And we treated these children with anti inflammatory medication that we would use for Crohn's and dietary intervention. And not only did their gastrointestinal symptoms improve, but their their autism features resolved, to a large extent not cured, but they went away. And it was far more than just a child feeling better. It was they started using words they hadn't used for five years. Everything was still there, but it's somehow been trapped. And what we had done by diminishing the gastrointestinal inflammation had been to reverse at least some elements of this condition. It was fascinating. It was, by the time I left the role free, we scoped 183 children, and we found it in virtually every child. And so at that stage, we said, this is real this is this is very, very interesting. And that was really the beginning of the sort of gut brain acts as a story that now is very popular part of the academic literature, and the parents were right. The important thing about this poll is that it reaffirmed the value of the patient's story or in this case, the parents story. This is what happened to this patient in their in lay the clues to the child's disease. And we took a an historically irreversible condition, autism era, there's nothing you can do about it, put them in a home, forget about No, completely wrong. Everything I learned about autism, from my colleagues was all wrong. Everything. And everything that I've learned from parents turned out to be right. It's absolutely fascinating, but it was that is how medicine is that is how medicine should be. If you listen, then you will be provided with the clues. If you assume in your arrogance that you know better. When you dumb, then you will never learn you will remain ignorant. And so we learned a great deal from these parents. And so when they said my child regressed after a vaccine, we had an absolute professional and moral obligation to take that seriously in investigated. However, my pediatric colleagues didn't want to do that. They said to me, alarmingly, they said, Andy, as pediatricians we can't be seen to question the safety of NMR. Now, by this stage, what I done is I as an academic, I thought, well, if I'm going to get involved in this, this could stir up a bit of a hornet's nest, I'm going to have to read all of the safety studies the pre licensing safety studies worldwide for measles containing vaccines. What was actually done before these were put onto the market and into children for measles, vaccine, measles, rubella vaccine and measles, mumps rubella vaccine. And it was appalling. It was astonishing. I wrote a 250 page report on this and I for my own edification, really, and I thought I must be missing something. I'm be doing these people a disservice. There must be some literature there that I have missed. That I have not yet summarized, I couldn't say wasn't there. It did not exist. The safety studies were appalling. And when I read about the the studies, you'll know about Willowbrook, and similar studies in the UK where they experimented on children in state homes for severely disabled children with gross mental and physical disabilities. They experimented on these children, these children were there guinea pigs, and they justified it on the basis of these children are particularly susceptible to epidemics of these infect. No, no, no, that wasn't the reason at all. That's pure, bogus nonsense. It was because I think one that was the only honest thing I said is that they are easy to observe. Yes, the reader observe because they're bed bound, because they're paralyzed, or that it's terrible. It was terrible. It was atrocious. And when I realized that that was the basis for the contention that these vaccines were safe and effective. And that the one shot would last for life and there would be no spreading of the vaccine virus or being alive virus from one to another, there would be no severe neurological injury or death as there might be with me. I mean, all of those. All those assumptions are turned out to be so completely wrong. And so I decided that I was going to get involved in this issue, my colleagues backed off, and that the Dean of the medical school took me aside. He was on the World Health Organization's Advisory Committee on hepatitis B vaccine. That was where he made a name for himself. So he had a vested interest. And he said to me, if you continue this vaccine safety work, it will not be good for your career of being a surgeon, I'm being obstinate, maybe want to do it twice as he was right. In as much as that it was not good for my career. And at that stage, shortly thereafter, Rupert Murdoch, US international GlaxoSmithKline. The Department of Health, the Royal College of Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, the government, the government, the CDC.
Dr. Paul 17:40
You piss off a lot of people came down. Oh, man, I'm right. I mean, it's just you now I understand. Dr. Smith, your senior advisor for that research study, ended up winning his trial, didn't he?
Dr. Andy Wakefield 17:58
He did. Well, they were three of us were pulled up in front of our regulatory body, the equivalent of your state boards, you know, me too well. Ours is called the General Medical Council. And this was a it's a sort of national board, and they're funded by the government. So they really are obliged to fall in line with government diktat and we were accused of all kinds of abusing children conducting research, without ethical approval that we were doing this for research purposes, experimenting, rather than doing it for the well being of the children, which was subsequently shown to be absolute nonsense, and this was the first time so they found us guilty, we were had our licenses removed. And the first time it ever came before a proper judiciary in the UK was before justice meeting in the English High Court. When john Walker Smith's appeal was heard, I appeal but I had to withdraw my appeal because I couldn't afford the funded. And he appealed and justice meeting demolish the General Medical Council, he said that their behavior was effectively a disgrace, that they were not fit to judge evidence. And he quashed every single decision they made. He exonerated the last paper, he exonerated john Walker Smith. It was done in the interests of the children, not for the purpose of experimentation, etc, etc, went on and on and on. The legal counsel for the General Medical Council offered no defense whatsoever. She simply apologized for their behavior. And that was it. And he said, this must never happen again. And of course, it has happened again, because that's how they behave. Now, but you don't hear much of that in the news.
Dr. Paul 19:50
Now you don't share don't. So one of the things that you impressed me the most, you know, I knew your story and how you were targeted. Ultimately, last year licensed to practice the career that you spent so much invested so much of your life into that you loved. I mean, you clearly were a top notch physician, a great researcher, you had compassion, ethics, everything. And I was at a conference where you were speaking, and I think one of the parents asked you something like, how do you not get upset? Why aren't you mad, angry, frustrated with the system? And your response just humbled me so greatly because you just something along the lines of, you know, how can I be upset when all of you parents and you know, at some of those conferences would be 1000 parents? And these are parents who've lost a child to autism, or they're just living in that world? And they are heroes? But yeah, it say it in your own words, because it's so eloquent when you do. How do you stay from becoming bitter and angry, given how they've just relentlessly targeted you for over two decades.
Dr. Andy Wakefield 21:05
I don't know when I said that. But But I can give you my position. Now, my perspective now, and that is that if I did become angry and resentful and embittered, then I am not going to be able to best serve the community. It's more it's an indulgence, my duty remains to these children and to their parents. And if I indulge myself in my own anger, and bitterness and resentment, then I'm not going to be serving them as best I could I, the other thing that I discovered along the way, is that it's not about me, it's not about me, there is a ruthless pragmatism to the way in which the pharmaceutical industry deal with people like me, it's, it's not personal. They make it sound like it's personal. But I'm threatening their bottom line, I'm threatening their stock price. And that can't be allowed. So when I realized that it simply wasn't about me, and I was I was down in I may have told me this story before I was in West Texas. And it was right out in the middle of nowhere. And it was night. And I looked up at the sky, and billions and billions of stars, this universe that went on forever. And I realized how tiny and insignificant I was in the great scheme of things. And so I realized that the universe probably doesn't care terribly much about the problems of Andrew Wakefield, and that this issue was not about me, it was about something far more important. And when I realized that when I came to terms with that it was a huge weight off my shoulders. And it meant that I could move forward without bitterness and anger and focus my attention on trying to answer the questions as trying to resolve the issue to the extent that I can, on behalf of children and on behalf of understanding Vaccine Injury. And that made my life very much easier to bear that there's no doubt there had been some difficult times along the way, and you've experienced this yourself that but once you take yourself out of the equation in that way, it makes it very much easier to be philosophical, and I I kind of sometimes I just sit on the moon and look down at the earth and I say this is the way it is no, this is the way that we behave as a species and our our role, if we are to set an example is to do exactly that, to continue to be professional, to continue to be logical. And I see myself now I guess as as an educator now that's what I do through film now is to bring people the information that I believe they need to do. As Laurie Gregory, my CEO says to do the heavy lifting for people and to condense it into a film that is both entertaining and informative. And so I'm enormously grateful but it also was a privilege to be involved with these families and and to help to some extent, but I love filmmaking and I, I'm considered consider myself to be blessed.
Dr. Paul 24:51
Your journey is such a shining light for me. So I'm on that same journey having been targeted And, you know, having some initial resistance. I've learned about myself that I was very ego driven. Because, boy, as a doctor, you're just providing answers and answers and answers. And I supervise nurse practitioners. So I'm spinning through their rooms and providing answers and answers. And that was very good for my ego was not very good for my soul, my spirit, I'm learning from heroes like you how to get back in touch with that I love your moon looking down on the earth example. I just this week figured out my role I learned got a letter from the board and from the academy of pediatrics and the Board of Addiction Medicine. I'm board certified with both of those. On one day, I get three, three emails. Yep, they've yanked my license. And my court hearing is next January, I hear that I've lost my board status on all of that. And so it was a day of sort of, Oh, poor me, and you know, all of that. And I very quickly realized, no, I'm going to be an educator. And I can call myself a wellness coach if I so desire, but, you know, we have a bigger purpose. And so I'm actually grateful also, that I've been given this opportunity to really re examine my life and my purpose and be more in line with perhaps my real purpose as that little tiny individual in this huge universe of all the stars. So thank you for sharing your perspective on that. Tell us tell our viewers about your movies, because I know you've I know a couple of them, but you might even be working on some more, I'm guessing.
Dr. Andy Wakefield 26:41
Yes. My movie career started with with Polly Tommy, the autism media channel, we started producing a show for the sky network in Europe, when we were both still in England. And it was a before, during and after show so that we would take families broken by autism, take the child, diagnose the medically treat them appropriately and then heal the family. So you had this before, during and after three part series. And that was that was going well, until we encountered a child in Chicago we were asked to come in and help with a boy called Alex for lockets. Alex was 17 he was huge. He was strong. He was mute. He was vaccine injured, profoundly autistic. And he was in four point locked restraints in an intensive care unit. And he was given over the course of his time in those hospitals 28 psychotropic medications, which were disasters everyone was given to offset the side effects of the loss. And it was just a classic example of medicines failure to understand anything about this disorder.
He was chained to the bed for probably in total about 80 days. It was an awful situation. We went there we helped get him out. We drove him through the night with his mother and godmother to New York where he was scoped by Dr. Arthur Krigsman and found to have inflammatory bowel disease and was put on the right treatment. He was starting to get better but he went back into his mother had nowhere to live with him. She was estranged from her husband, and she was going from hotel to motel there were the three of them the godmother, the mother and Alex. The problem for x is every time he heard a siren, then they were coming to take him away again, they were coming back to chain him to the bed and medicate him. And he would have a meltdown. He destroyed the hotel room. The mother would end up with a black eye and bruised and so they were moved on. They could never find anyone. They were exhausted, absolutely exhausted. And the next we heard of him, he was in the intensive care unit in a Lutheran Hospital in Chicago, and we went to see him and he was again chained to the bed and he was on to intravenous someone intramuscular sedation, and it was extraordinary. And the mother was beyond exhausted. She just something about her had changed. And she in fact, unbeknown to us at this time was also on unprescribed psychotropic medications. And the godmother was sitting there with a black eye and it was a terrible so we went to try and find somewhere safe for this child get away from this environment and, and recover. Halfway through the week, we were gone. The boys insurance ran out, so they took out his IV took off his chains and put them out on the street. And a week, a week later, he was fed his mother had killed him, stabbed him to death and tried to take her own life as had the godmother. So this was a murder suicide. And she fed the godmother. They both woke up to this nightmare of a dead child and, and life in prison. And she was in the in Cook County, we went down to Cook County prison. I mean, if you've ever been going on place on a drone, and she, we went to see her and we decided we needed to make a documentary grant. This was such an extraordinary story of the abject failure of the medical system to deal with this, that it had led to a mother killing a child, the way the system viewed this. And none of this is to advocate murder or attempted suicide, none of it at all. But it was, we had captured the real story, to the lay observer to people reading the news. It was a crazed mother, who hated her child and decided to take his life in some sort of revenge. It wasn't that at all. This woman loved her child dearly. We witnessed this firsthand. And she could no longer bear his suffering. And she could no longer she was so tired, she was beyond exhaustion. So we made this story, we told the story of who killed Alex for lockets. And it was very hard hitting it was a brutal story to put up with to have to watch. But it was reality. And that was over. It did well in its own way. And there she was languishing in prison for years later, it was Christmas 2017. And she was still awaiting trial. She had not yet gone to trial. And she was facing aggravated murder, which means no parole, prison for life. And her lawyer, her pro bono lawyer from Chicago, lovely man called me and said, Andy, the state's prosecutor who was responsible for prosecuting Dorothy's board, lacus, just called me a few weeks ago and said, We understand that a film has been made about this case, we'd like to see it. And so I sent him my copy of the DVD. And he watched it with his colleagues, and he called me back and he said, having watched the film, we can no longer prosecute this case, in the same way she will be released from prison next week.
And she was released from prison. And that is the power of film. Because without that film, it would simply have been a crazy mother who hated her child. That was the picture that had been painted. And when they saw that they could never prosecute in the same way. Wow. That's the first time that had happened in American legal history. And when I realized that when I realized then the power of film, I decided it was time to make another one. And that's when William Thompson fell into our lap spider, my good friend, Brian hook. And there was a story, again, a unique story from the inside the first time ever, someone in the vaccine safety office of the CDC had come forward and said, We have done something really bad. And I can no longer live with that. And here is the evidence and gave us all the evidence. So we may have racks and racks changed everything. And ironically, it changed everything because it was censored from tribe back and it was a powerful film in its own right. But it was accepted for Dr. Becker. And Robert De Niro who runs dry backup as a vested interest. He has an autistic child who was vaccine injured and he The film was due to play there and then it was pulled. There were three very very bad days in my filmmaking career. I remember calling Jane Rosenthal, his partner, Dr. backer and screaming at her for you know, what do you think you're doing? right have you got to censor anything when you don't have any anyway, I understood there were financial reasons underpinning that decision. And De Niro went on television through days later on the Good Morning America and remember seeing that and saying we should never have done that that film should have played everybody should see it and make up their own mind and that De Niro phenomenon, it exploded worldwide. Worldwide, literally it Dell victory, my producer said, call the colleague who did a lot of the publicity for Disney. And he said, How much would it cost to get the publicity we just got from De Niro going on the on the national news, he said you could have taken on the top five companies that you could not have approved that comes close to that effect. And so if it had played at Tribeca, it would have been one thing if 100 people would have seen it in the in the in the film festival and it would have done its own thing. Because of the censorship. It became a phenomenon and it had the effect of changing the minds of so many people. It's very powerful, very powerful film, folks.
Dr. Paul 36:05
If you have not seen Vax, do you absolutely need to watch this movie. It was a game changer. Yeah, I flew down to California for that opening show. I remember standing outside with lines and lines of people. And you were so gracious out there just talking with everybody. Yeah, what an amazing movie.
Dr. Andy Wakefield 36:24
After Vax dough went off and did his show. And Polly went off and built the autism trust in Texas. And I wanted to make another film and I wanted to make one about the 1986 National childhood Vaccine Injury because there was an extraordinary situation where the great majority of Americans become clear to me did not realize that vaccine makers have no liability for death and injury caused by vaccines on the childhood recommended schedule from the CDC. They were in a unique position by virtue of this law that they had been removed from the constraints of the free market. But they could make products that had not been tested for safety, they could make products that were a failure that were useless, that were dangerous. And they had no liability whatsoever. Moreover, their products were mandated, children were required to get vaccines to go to school in many states. So they had a perfect business model of a mandated market and no liability, all they could do was make a massive profit, which is what they've done. And when they realized they could make this profit, they expanded the vaccine schedule for children dramatically for increasingly less severe diseases just because they could. And they become immensely powerful as a consequence, and much of the situation in which we find ourselves now and bear in mind this film was the production had finished before COVID had ever been heard of. That meant many of the problems we face now have their origins in that 1986 not least of which is the international power it gave the pharmaceutical companies not only to bribe politicians to buy policy, to write policy, to buy doctors to buy medical journals to dictate medical school research to buy the media to buy editorial, everything, they became so powerful. One thing that the film brings out, though, is that one thing they could not buy with the hearts and minds of people. They've lost that and they've lost it for all time, and they will never get back. And that is a growing problem for him. And one which they're unable to overcome. It doesn't matter how much they spent on K Street was who when I do their public relations or you know, trying to coerce or persuade people that they must get vaccinated and their vaccines are safe and effective. People, many, many people a growing number of people will no longer trust and so it was a fascinating film. So I thought I knew quite a lot about the about its origins, but I didn't. I didn't until I interviewed Mike Hugo, who was a lawyer before the act during the act and after the act in the new vaccine court and he produced these discovery documents that had never seen the light of day before which were the real reason that the makers of the potassic the wholesale pertussis vaccine could never face a jury. They could never go before a jury because of these documents appeared before a jury they would have been bankrupted in a heartbeat because what they had done was so egregious. And in a nutshell, what they, they said to Congress, we've made the whooping cough vaccine as safe as we possibly can don't make it any safer. We're getting sued. It's a small market for us. If you want children to be protected against this disease, then you will give us liability protection, you will stop us being sued, we will take away that liability, or we'll pull out of the market children will die because hoop and golf will come back. How do you feel about that, it'll be your fault. And so that was the message. And that was a lie. It was a complete not a lie, because they had a patent. They are known for 60 years before the licensing of the safer a cellular vaccine, that they could make it safer. And it costs less than a penny a dose to do so. But they chose to that would eat into their profits. And so they did not do that. But parents would not pay $1,000 tended to avoid permanent brain injury and death in that child at 10,000. I would it ridiculous, but for less than a penny.
And so they lied to Congress, they like the medical profession. They like parents, they lie to everybody. And they did it to protect themselves and their profits. And so that was the basis or at least a large part of the basis for 1986 the act like a fix when the Act was passed to play on George Orwell's 1984. And that film came out. Tell me to shut up all the time till now you
Dr. Paul 41:41
know this, I'm loving this history. So I took my wife to watch that movie. And of course, she's been with me through my whole career. She's heard this whole vaccine saga play out. She had washed backs with me more than once. It was that movie that brought her to tears. And she said I get it. So folks, that's another one you just have to see. It's a masterpiece. I think the piece in there that I hadn't seen in the original vaccine, at least portrayed as clearly was how healthy and how well, the unvaccinated children were doing. And this is something I see in my practice. It's something that bears true in my recently published baxton Vax article. I just knew that from taking care of families for the last, well, 13 years of my current practice, these families who, you know, would be considered alternative or way out there that won't vaccinate. I mean, they're kicked out of other practices that come to our practice, because we honor informed consent. So I had this huge collection of families that won't vaccinate their kids were never sick. And they were the healthiest kids ever. And it was like, Can this really be? We should look at this with real data. So that's what I did. That's what I published. And of course, the story is five days later, the board Yanks by license because it's an emergency. My co author, Jennifer Margolis, and I, we wrote the vaccine friendly plan. You know about that, Andy? My mom said to her when she met her says, so you put my son's head on a platter for them, didn't you? Talk I'm talking to Jennifer like, of course, that started the journey. And I put off writing that book until my kids were almost done being raised. Because Yeah, it was sort of inevitable. As you know, your life journey has portrayed.
Dr. Andy Wakefield 43:40
What are you going to say this poll that you will, I am very proud of you. You've done you've done exactly the right thing, you will never regret the decision that you've taken and you will there will come a time. on your deathbed when you're an old man and your children come to see you and they will know that you did the right thing. And you will know and you will go gently into that good night knowing that when it came to it when it came to the hard decision, hard choice, you made the right one.
Dr. Paul 44:16
Yeah, no, I know that. Thank you. And thank you really thank you for you made that choice. Such a long time ago when you were still young, when it was going to be extraordinarily costly for your future and you still made the right choice which is why you're one of my heroes. I didn't have the guts to do it till I was almost done raising my kids I had I had a house full of nine kids three biological the rest of the chapter then I'm the main income and I'm like, it'll all fall apart. So I was chicken. But as soon as I felt like I could do it. I did. I mean all along. I was building to that point, right. I mean, I'm honoring informed consent and doing the best I could with the situation. I was in But thank you for that I do feel honored to have been able to help and serve our patients, which is ultimately what it's about. I love how you started off were the same age, I just discovered that as we were talking right before we got started. So we were in school roughly at the same time and ethics back then. I mean, we were taught not to not to follow a paternalistic approach, which was doctor knows best. No, we were taught to listen to the patient. And that's all seems to have been just out the window. Now doctor knows best Do as I say, otherwise, there's the door, at least in pediatrics when it comes to vaccines. And it's sad. It's sad for the families that are trusting their doctors, and not realizing that those doctors are actually mostly unknown to them. This is the thing. We don't know that the the information we're reading as science is junk, most of it, right?
Dr. Andy Wakefield 45:59
It is absolutely I remember my first experience in clinical medicine as a student on the on a surgical Ward, the surgical unit, which was the professorial unit, it's America sounds terrifying day when you're there, and you know, nothing, you know, absolutely nothing, you're about to be exposed to your ignorance. And the surgeon who took the the ward round and taught us said, the most important thing you will ever hear is the first thing that patient tells you about their condition.
And the day that you forget that the day you ignore that is the day that you turn around, you walk out of this hospital, and you never come back. And it was, it was a great lesson. And I used to say to my medical students when I taught them. Half of what I'm teaching you is right and half is wrong. And the problem for me is that I don't know, I don't know which half is which. And it's up to you to tell me. And that's the way the iterative process of science and in medical education is that you will discover what's right and wrong wrong. And you will correct me on where I have been wrong. But I cannot assume for a moment that what I'm telling you is the truth or will pertain even tomorrow. It may all change. And so and I think that medicine has lost. Its necessary. It's vital humility, that we do not know. And this is particularly the case, when we're dealing with infectious agents. One thing I've learned having studied measles for 30 years now, measles vaccine 30 years is to accord these infectious agents the greatest of respect, because they have a collective intelligence, they will adapt, they will change. And they will survive. And if you make assumptions about them, which we've done in the public health arena, we've done in the vaccine region, then they will come back to haunt you in the biggest way and they may not do it tomorrow. But they will do it. And I think that's what we're seeing right now.
Dr. Paul 48:14
Yeah, I was gonna say what what is your just to sort of segue into what we're dealing with worldwide today is COVID. Of course, we're hearing about all these variants. What's your take on that?
Dr. Andy Wakefield 48:27
In a nutshell, and I my concern has been this the the extraordinary ability of these agents to adapt to mutate to change, but to survive. And they will do that if you put a genetic selection pressure on them. So as with antibiotics and antibiotic resistant bacteria, we've given him imperfect antibiotics, we've given it in imperfect ways. We've put increasingly potent antibiotics in the first line therapy because the drug companies persuaded doctors to do so we've used it indiscriminately in animal husbandry. And now we face 80 years after the introduction of antibiotics, we face the post antibiotic Apocalypse, I just heard the public health describe it. It's gone from being miracle to nightmare because we have created multi resistant highly dangerous agents. If you have an imperfect approach to an infectious agent, you will put selection pressure on it. Now, if COVID had been allowed to appear, emerge, peak, defer ves and disappear. Without genetic selection pressure, the dominant strain of COVID will remain the dominant strain. But if you've tried and flatten the curve, if you Institute masking and social distancing, and shutdown of schools and things like this, you don't stop transmission, but you will attenuate it we'll modify it, what that will do is put a genetic selection pressure on the virus to generate strains of the virus that are more easily transmissible in a city. Let's put it simply, if a virus, social distancing is six feet, if a giant a virus could previously jump from one person to another five feet, but you put six feet in the way, the few variants that can jump seven feet will become the dominant strain. And you have created that situation. So we then saw the emergence of more transmissible versions of the virus. If you put in place a vaccine that has 93% efficacy, then for those 7%, who aren't protected, they're going to generate strains of the virus that are resistant to the immunity produced by the vaccine. And now we're seeing the emergence of resistant strains of COVID. We've done this we've created the scenario where that genetic selection pressure selects for these variants. And so I saw the head of Pfizer saying classes, this is great, because we'll have to keep making new vaccines to the new strains as they arise. Well, it's a godsend for the pharmaceutical industry, they created the situation. And so the problem is that these viruses can mutate in a day, and it'll take us six months to produce a vaccine, you'll never get ahead of it. You'll never get ahead of it. You could be taking 100 vaccines and what they did with antibiotics. At the end of the day, the drug companies said, we're going to pull out of investigation and development of new antibiotics because by the time we get to market with our new drug, the bugs are already resistant. So we're pulling out your on your own, how do you feel? Bye, guys. And that's what they've done. And they'll do the same with vaccines, when they produce 50 different vaccines for COVID. They'll say, actually, this is a losing battle, we're not going to win this one, the bugs beaten us Goodbye, we'll go on to something else. And so we are we've handled this entirely wrong, entirely wrong, but we should have, in my opinion protected those who were at greatest risk isolated those greatest risk, we had all kinds of things that have been shown through the science to be highly effective vitamin D. ivermectin hydroxychloroquine. And allow the rest of the population to get the infection to avoid that genetic selection pressure, and it would have gone away by now. But we didn't.
Dr. Paul 52:32
Yes, yeah. Thank you for that wisdom. What are you working on now? So you've done, you've done your two Vax movies, we'll call it the act your second one? Well, what's come next, what's coming next? or what have you already completed,
Dr. Andy Wakefield 52:49
we are making a new movie. And the problem is, I can't tell you anything about it, because it's so but please know, we are in pre production on a new movie. And, in fact, I'm moving from where I am now to go go and make that movie. If people want to watch our movies, which I believe they should, if they want to understand why we are where we are now, then you need to understand the history. And then you can predict where this might go in future, please go to 1986, the act.com 1986, the app.com. And there you can buy the movie, as a DVD, you can stream it, you can download it, you can also and this is something that emerged in the face of censorship and COVID and lockdown of movie theaters, you can get a license for a community screening. And we will help you We'll take you through the process. So we're in your church hall or your church or your home, your community center, you can bring people together and have this movie shown. And this has been a very, very popular way of doing things increasingly as people have not been able to get out the movie theaters. So this this community screening is a very effective way of spreading the word. So you can get the most popular DVD set actually is all three movies, spore locker specs and 1986 the act and so yeah, so it's so please go please go to 1986 react and by the movie and help us make that make the new one.
Dr. Paul 54:42
Absolutely. I'm going to go by that set right now. Andy, I didn't realize you had the the three together. And I just will let you go with one closing remark for the viewers. What should they think about going forward?
Dr. Andy Wakefield 54:59
Are you Understand, okay, because once you understand once you've gone down the rabbit hole, there's no coming back. Once you realize the truth, then your life has changed forever, for the good. And you will be able to make decisions from an informed position and you as an advocate, one of the strongest advocates for fully informed consent will appreciate this, that part of our job is to provide that information to make that consent fully informed. And my job is to provide that to people in film. So please, for your own sake, for your children's sake for the sake of future generations. Get the information when you and I got into this, there was very little information now there is an abundance of information. And it's it's there, it's available, access it read the CDC website, read National Vaccine information Center's website, watch the movies, get all that information, and then make your decisions from an informed position.
Dr. Paul 56:13
Absolutely. Thank you, Andy, I wish you the very best with your next movie venture. And thank you so much for being on the show. My pleasure, my friend, thank you so much. All right. Take care.
Welcome, Jeremy. It's great to have you back on against the wind doctors and science under fire. You know, you wrote that amazing book about me. In March, Oregon Medical Board suspends Dr. Paul Thomas for practicing informed consent. Thank you for that amazing effort and work. You're one of the few independent journalists who really has taken a deep dive into the vaccine issue. I'm curious, what led you to do that?
Jeremy R. Hammond 56:54
Well, becoming a father, the simple short answer when she got pregnant, I just started kind of applying the skills I'd learned, learned doing independent journalism, which, you know, by which I became comfortable kind of looking at like scientific literature and things. I had also had health problems on my own. So I was comfortable looking at, you know, and I was diagnosing myself and looking into the literature for answers, because doctors weren't particularly helpful to me. And so I just gained comfort doing that. And so I just started really deeply diving into the medical literature like going to pubmed.gov, and just looking up things and to be able to make our own personal informed choice. And the thing is, is after spending so much time doing that for myself, and for my wife and our child, I couldn't, once I had that knowledge, I couldn't not share it with other people.
Dr. Paul 57:39
Can you comment on science? So we hear this fact, you know that the news all over the place, doesn't matter which political party it's affiliated with, we follow the science. And, you know, we're told by government, we're told by the mass media, that this is the science. But what's your take on that?
Jeremy R. Hammond 57:58
Yeah, my take on that is that they're treating the science as a faith as a religion. You see, I mean, you you see statements like I trust the science, I believe in the science. And the problem with that, is that what the government and the mainstream media say science says, and what the scientific literature actually tells us, and how it informs us are two completely different things that are irreconcilable. Yeah. And so this is the fundamental problem, people aren't being told what the science says they're just being told, lies, demonstrably lies, oftentimes, or the science is being misrepresented. Or they, they might hear something that's true, but they're not being given the full context of the fault. They're not being given the full truth. And so there's lying by omission. I mean, there's all sorts of propaganda techniques. And the purpose is not to educate the purposes not to inform, but to manufacture consent for government policies, public vaccine policies,
Dr. Paul 58:55
are you saying that what we're hearing on the news is not what's actually going on?
Jeremy R. Hammond 59:03
Yes. And it's not just not just with this issue. I mean, I had, you know, all of my work well, before I got into the vaccine issue was really focused on exposing media propaganda, government propaganda and media propaganda. And, you know, a really good source on on that aspect of the way the media perform that function is Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's book, Manufacturing Consent, that's where I'm getting the term from Manufacturing Consent, the political economy of the mass media, they do a really good job in that book.
Dr. Paul 59:32
So I think this brings me to what I really wanted to talk to you about today. And that's censorship. Because you know, what are the ways that information is being censored?
Jeremy R. Hammond 59:41
The first is, is really self self censorship, as I kind of just touched on, you know, in in their book, Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman discuss what they call filters, of how you know, information is kind of filtered through these various means, so that what the public gets is is really far from the whole truth. And oftentimes riddled with lies and misinformation. Like among scientists, there's an unwillingness to kind of speak out and tell the truth because people know that they're going to be attacked, it's going to place a target on their back, they're going to have their, their character assassinated, they're going to be personally attacked, and a lot of people just aren't willing to, to accept that, you know that that outcome of speaking out and telling the truth, but there's actually active censorship that's been taking place where information is, is literally being censored in the old fashioned sense of the term. We're just being blocked. And you know, social media is censoring Facebook is censoring information. It's saying that if you say this, your post will be removed, and you will risk being d platformed. Showing how it can be that, you know, in a supposedly democratic society in which we supposedly have a free press, that the media fulfill a function of this, they fulfill this propaganda function of manufacturing consent for a given political given policy. But it's obvious that they don't really care about the accuracy of the information. It's not it's obvious that the criteria is not whether it's true or false, or misleading, or honest. Because one, I mean, just as one example of how that's demonstrably untrue, is one of Facebook's criteria is that they say that if you say that the COVID-19 vaccines are not approved, quote, unquote, if you say they're not approved, then your posts will be removed, and you risk being d platformed. However it is You and I both know, they are not approved, they do not have FDA approval. So in other words, what Facebook is saying they're literally telling us that if you tell the truth, and you say they are not FDA approved, they have emergency use authorization, which is for experimental products, which is different from the FDA approval process. They don't they don't, they are not licensed for use. That's different. So if you tell the truth and explain that to people, you're going to be censored that you that you're not allowed to tell people that truth. And so that's just a really clear example of how Facebook is eating their criteria is their criterion is not whether it's truthful or mis informative. It's does it serve the political agenda or not? So you know, they're demonstrably misinforming people, and literally lying to the public in the name of stopping misinformation. So the hypocrisy is, it's just off the charts. It's so extraordinary. But this is the state of affairs where people are getting information. You know, official lies are provable. So if you say that these are FDA approved vaccines, as the government, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services here in Michigan, has done until they had a cease and desist order. So this type of you know, outright lying to the public is acceptable behavior. This is just culturally okay. Whereas if you tell the truth, again, that that's just become unacceptable. And it's really frightening state of affairs, but this is the reality of the situation.
Dr. Paul 1:02:55
Are there any major platforms that are not doing this that you can truly say freely what the science is, and not be at risk for being censored?
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:03:06
The there are platforms that are not, I can go on to speak freely, and they're not censoring me, I've started using numerous other platforms, it was pretty much mainly on Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn for a long time. However, just in the last several months, I've really started also posting my stuff to a wide variety of other platforms, including me, wheeze is probably a top one that I liked the most. But gab, there's another one that's quite popular. I don't like it so much. I can't think of parlour when I'm thinking. And there's a number of them. And there's quite a lot of them now that I'm on whether they're that useful to me or not, I feel it kind of necessary to kind of build try to at least build up an audience on those platforms as well.
Dr. Paul 1:03:45
How about the, you know, where people buy products? So Amazon? How about YouTube? We having similar censorship there?
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:03:54
I don't publish a lot to YouTube, I don't make most of my stuff is in writing as opposed to video. Amazon, I mean, I don't have any books on this issue. I have my books are all on it apart from the way the E book I wrote about your situation. The books that have for sale on Amazon, are all foreign policy issues. So I haven't experienced that is
Dr. Paul 1:04:15
less controversial, perhaps
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:04:16
I was censored at you know, for from 2008. till last year, I was publishing foreign policy journal. And that was quite dependent on advertising. And so last spring, I received notification that the ad partner I was working with notified me that Google, I could no longer work with him because our Google certified ad partner, and they told me that my Google had informed them that my publication was in violation of their community guidelines. I asked for information about what guidelines I was in violation of and that information was not forthcoming. However, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the cause of that was that I had started to post I did in this case, make a couple of videos don't really eat on the rare occasions I had made some videos, specifically talking about the COVID-19 lockdowns and like debunking lies, like the lie that, you know, the fatality rate was 3.4% was one of the things that the World Health Organization had claimed. And I was just addressing, like fearmongering information like that, in my in my videos, you know, and it was it was all very well sourced I had I had in my video I like had showed the links, and I showed my citations for everything I was citing. And I think that must have been what it was that caused them to say, well, you're republishing wrong information. You're guilty of wrong think. And so you can no longer advertise with our platform.
Dr. Paul 1:05:43
Yeah, feels like we're really losing our ability to have free speech in this country. I guess the CounterPoint might be somebody would say, well, what's wrong? I'm a private company, what's wrong with me being able to pick and choose what I want? What content I want on my platform? You know, how would you respond to that?
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:06:02
Yeah, if we were talking about a free market, that that might be a legitimate argument. The problem here is that there is some validity to that argument. You know, I mean, I personally, you know, feel that private property rights are very important. And, you know, in this case, like you said, the argument can be, well, Facebook is a private company, they can set whatever terms they want. The problem is that they're not doing this really of their own accord. You know, they're they're doing this in service to the government is an example, a really clear example of this is, Congressman Adam Schiff, a couple of years ago sent letters to the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Amazon, telling them that they need to start censoring information about vaccines, what he described as vaccine, quote, unquote, misinformation. But in that same letter, he very clearly defined misinformation euphemistically as meaning any information that might lead parents to conclude that strictly complying with the CDC schedule, is not in the best interest of their child. And he was very clear about that, like, that's the problem like big because people could, could you know, if they see this information, and that that makes them think twice about following the CDC recommendations, then that's misinformation. So he was defining misinformation as anything that might cause people to second guess what they're being told. Which, of course, is is a misuse of the term misinformation. It's a euphemistic use of the term. And so that's a really clear example of how you there's this political pressure from, from Congress, from the government on these companies to do something about what they describe as a problem, meaning that people are getting information that the government doesn't want them to have.
Dr. Paul 1:07:47
very troubling. So I'll bring it to our final big question for you. What the heck can we do about this? I mean, it feels like we're just spiraling into a more of a totalitarian like government controlled society. You know, it's it's not feeling like we really have freedom, in the sense of bodily autonomy, freedom to make our own healthcare decisions, what's, you know, where do we go? What are your thoughts?
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:08:15
Yeah, that's a really good question. And it's, it's a challenging obstacle, I would say, first and foremost, you know, just keep spreading the knowledge and keep spreading information, regardless of what there are attempts to try to silence us, we just need to keep getting information out there. And whatever way we can, fortunately, there are other platforms that really like me, we is probably the top one among all the alternative platforms. So you know, using platforms like that, you know, let's, let's give the competition, our attention and our business. And let's support those platforms that respect free speech. And in that aren't going to censor on behalf of the State on behalf of the government, and will enable us to get that information out there. And it the other the other point I want to make is that we really do need to be careful about the information we do send, because, you know, I'm quite critical of people within the health freedom movement as well. You when you know that oftentimes, the accusation that we're spreading misinformation is legitimate. And the last thing we want to do is to legitimize, you know, these accusations that we're spreading misinformation, and unfortunately, there is, you know, a fair amount of misinformation on both sides, although the preponderance of misinformation is from the government and the media, the mainstream media, and this is a problem. And so, I think we kind of need to be more self critical as a movement and just take greater care in our own actions. to not do that. And to be really careful about the information we do we do send and to make sure that it's it's credible, that it's accurate. And it the other thing is, you know, one of the things is we need to you The whole censorship concept, the whole that what they're doing in terms of blocking information, it's kind of like they're telling us that we shouldn't consider these perspectives, there are perspectives out there that, you know, we absolutely must not be aware of, we should not consider them. And my whole concept is that, well, we need to, we should consider every perspective, we need to consider all perspectives and take them into account and be able to reconcile them with our own beliefs and our own opinions, and our own positions on things. And this is how we grow this is how we learn. This is really the scientific process is that not of being able to, you know, questioning yourself and checking your own confirmation biases and things. And, you know, you can't teach people how to think critically, when you're trying to tell them what to think, and telling them what you shouldn't think this and you shouldn't look at this information. So you know, again, just, we need to kind of be mindful of our own confirmation biases, and just educate ourselves one, and then to just get that information out to other people in whatever way possible. And just keep spreading that information.
Dr. Paul 1:11:06
So if you had a closing comment, any action ideas for what people could actually do to counter this?
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:11:17
Well, apart from just you know, sharing the information, you know, regardless of the censorship, you know, I think in terms of, there's one, it's one thing to talk about spreading information on social media, it's another, you know, in your private life, for example, you know, having conversations that might be uncomfortable and difficult with your own family, with friends. So I've lost friends, just trying to have conversations with them about important issues. But you know, I think we need to recognize that, you know, there's comes a point where maybe keeping a friendship isn't as important as standing on principle. And I think, you know, a lot of people are wary and leery about saying and saying anything and speaking up, because they're afraid of what people are going to think and things. And, you know, I think that's the first thing, we just need to overcome that and just be willing to kind of stand up and speak out. Regardless of what other people might think about us, pretty young. So that's really, I think, the biggest step that people need to take.
Dr. Paul 1:12:19
Yeah. Now, it's a good point that how we deal with our I mean, my own family, my parents both got the covid 19 vaccine, it's not something I will do. And they're pretty well informed because of their association with me, they know a lot of the science. And so I have told them my position to the point where we're not having a family reunion, because my family is so divided about masks and all these issues, right. But I think it was important just to say this is my stand. And also I would point out to our listeners, it's really helpful if we can try to meet people where they're at, because right now we're going to have a society where 6070, maybe as high as 80% of society will have had the COVID-19 vaccine. It's done. It's already in their body. They can't undo that. We've got to love them where they're at, and be loving and supportive. And should they end up with problems as a result of that vaccine? lovingly support them through that journey? Should we end up with problems for not having vaccinated we would want their love as well. This has just been an unfolding new situation, unfortunately, totally messed up by the censorship and the misinformation, everything we've been talking about in this interview.
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:13:32
Yeah, if I can make one final point, actually, you just reminded me of even just advocating informed consent. I mean, that's really what you're talking about is we need to respect each other's choices, right? You know, and try to help inform each other to be able to make good choices, but then when people do make choices, Let's respect them and just like I want my choice to be respected, I respect other people's choice, but it's difficult also because it's part of the censorship is even just advocating informed consent is something that can be censored there was a paper published in the Journal of vaccine accusing children's health defense of being you know, a spreader of misinformation and in that they you know, they euphemistically define and anything anti vaccine as being missing infant You know, it anti vaccine defined the same way that Adam Schiff defined it. And then and then also equating that with the misinformation So in the example they gave was Michigan for vaccine choice advertisement on Facebook, that all it did, it didn't provide any information. It just simply said that we have this right to informed consent. And that's all that was the whole message of this advertisement. And they define that as anti vaccine misinformation so you can't even advocate informed consent without it being misinformation. And another point I want to make in terms of the optimism, I I've been talking about the censorship problem for you know, quite a few years now. And there is a glut, you know, the glass is half full. And one sense is that it's become recognized kind of in the mainstream that this is happening that this is a problem. I mean, you see people like Martin Cole Dorf, sunetra Gupta, Jay, Jay Bhattacharya. You know, the authors of the Great Barrington declaration when, when world renowned scientists are being censored and they can't speak out, there was Martin cold over on Twitter had a post where he was just saying, you know, basically saying that people should have the right to choose whether to get the COVID-19 vaccine or not. And and the like he's being censored. So the fact that this has kind of gone mainstream, even Glenn Greenwald, you know, is talking about the censorship now. So the fact that it's kind of more acknowledged in the mainstream now that this is happening, that this is a problem, I think is a good thing that needed to happen. So it made me to leave it on a more positive note.
Dr. Paul 1:15:42
We'll leave it at that. Thank you so much, Jeremy, I really appreciate your taking the time to be with us on against the wind. And let's talk again soon. It's an honor. Thank you. Take care.
Welcome to this segment. I am privileged to work with Cindy and grace, who are patients of mine, and have a unique story to share with you. How old are you now?
I'm about to turn 13. But I'm talking right now almost
Dr. Paul 1:16:16
a teenager? Yes. Wow. So we're in Oregon. People watching may not know that and we've been in homeschool or what do you call it quarantine lockdown for a long time. Are you still at home? Yeah, sometimes
we go get groceries.
Dr. Paul 1:16:31
Yeah. But in school is not in school. How's that going for you?
Dr. Paul 1:16:36
know. Most people don't. It's like, oh, as a pediatrician that just drives me nuts. Because I'm teaching kids all the time in my practice, watch out for screentime. Right? We're Animal Kingdom creatures, and we're wired to scan for danger. And when you're on a screen, there's things coming at you all the time. And it's little tiny danger responses. And it's not good for our brain. It's just not good. We're in a fight or flight stress situation. I hear so many stories of kids stressed out it's hard to focus anymore depressed anxiety. How are you holding out? Is it hard? Yeah, I mean, I have support groups. But yeah, I'm sorry. It's, it's gonna get better. Certainly gonna get different. Yeah. And I do encourage you to, you know, when you can get outside, when the weather gets better, you know, if you walk in the forest or a park or outside it feels different than just sitting on the screen. So that take all those opportunities. You can. Yeah, so do you know what we're going to talk about what health issue you have that we're going to discuss? epilepsy, epilepsy. Okay. Do you want to say anything about it? Or should I ask your mom? Okay. All right. So, take us back to before there was any concern of a seizure or epilepsy and how are things going what was her age What happened?
She was a pretty healthy baby, it was around 15 months. She had her MMR and didn't think anything of it. We had put her in a different room, she was with us, but he has been gets up early. And she would get woke up. So we put her in another room. And then he got up to go to work and had heard something on the monitor and went in there and she was having a seizure. And, and it was just very scary, like, we call an ambulance. And, you know, they get her and if she wasn't stopping right away, took them a while, but she didn't stop seizing until she was in the ambulance. That was the first feature that we noticed. Honestly, it took me a very long time to realize, you know, this is weird. So I did some research when she was like, six or seven. And, you know, kind of looked up what it has on the government site. It says like long term seizures. And I noticed when I did the research on the MMR, it was like eight days after she had MMR. And so then I was like, you know, kind of wondered about that. But then I kept hearing stories. My cousin was really isn't that Oregon medical freedom. And he kind of gave me some information on it. So now I'm just like, I seizures are horrible. And I know there's worse but it's just like the worst feeling to watch your child.
Dr. Paul 1:19:50
Oh, they're hard to watch. It is hard to watch even for a doctor had
like ones that are really quick than other ones. It's like it takes a while. for her to snap out of it.
Dr. Paul 1:20:02
I just saw she had a seizure A few days after the MMR. So do you say seven or eight days? Yeah. And that one lasted quite a while. It's it. How long would you guess? feels like forever? We're watching your child, you know, but I was still going on in the ambulance and
minutes. Right. And I know they had to give her more of the emergency medicine. Yeah, we're giving her because the amount that they given her in the house, it wasn't stopping. Right. And probably do you recall what did she have a fever at the time? She did? She did. And that was they called it a febrile seizure? Probably. Yeah. And then it wasn't until she was like, two and a half. She was grabbed was taking her sister to preschool, I had noticed she was in the back. And she was doing some weird things with her hands. And she was kind of looking up, like, spaced out. That's when they finally diagnosed her after she had the eg.
Dr. Paul 1:20:59
So she had an abnormal EKG. And how many times between that 15 months and two and a half when she got the eg did she have a what might have been a seizure? You know, we never paid attention. We didn't know like,
I don't know if they usually get shocked after that. I just know that. It just seemed weird after that. It was like her seizures were never the same.
Dr. Paul 1:21:24
So they were different. They were always different. What describe maybe the ones that come to mind the most when they look,
her head would tilt to the side, her eyes would kind of trigger to one side off to one side. Okay, maybe one arm would be moving. Like one leg, okay. Very rarely would be like a full control portion, right. But sometimes it would be arms and legs, everything just mostly either one or two limbs moving but yeah, not awful.
Dr. Paul 1:21:57
So I'll just interject to our audience. When you have a diagnosis of febrile seizures. They are by definition between six months and six years of age, by definition, they are associated with a fever, febrile seizures. And by definition, there's no other underlying cause. And they're generalized, meaning equal on both sides of the body. So what you were experiencing is not a febrile seizure because it was one sided typically. And that's something different. And so you did get the diagnosis of epilepsy. Since then, how often have you been having seizures? Do you? Do you have a sense of it? I was your last one. You remember. It's been a while she's doing pretty good. Okay. like yours? It's been like a year, like a year. Good. Like, February in February. Okay, here, but and are you on seizure medicine? Yes. You know what, which one? Okay, so you've tried a few I bet. Yes.
Yes. I think the fourth one. Wow. Because it was like none of the other ones were working. They like stop working. Yeah. And they weren't doing like the full tour. She wasn't having a Yeah. And so we had to put put her on the name room. Okay.
Dr. Paul 1:23:13
Well, I'm glad you found something that's working. And yeah, down the road. We'll chat about some other options, perhaps, that you can consider, but when you got something that's working for right now, stick with it. I think, how's how's learning in school? Is that okay? Or is it difficult? It's okay. Okay. You feel like she's doing grade level kind of work. It's tough. But she she's a hard worker. Good. She definitely wants to get good grades. Yeah, your job is just giving, you know, work hard to give it your best. And that's all we can ask anybody. Anyway, my parenting tip that I messed up with with my kids was somehow I gave them the impression that good, good grades was important. I'm not saying they're not important, but that's not what's important. What's important is effort. And so as parents, you just praise your kids for their effort. And that's awesome, right? You're gonna have a good life because you've got a good heart and things things will work out. I know they will. Clearly I don't know if our audience is aware of this, but there is a definite association between the MMR and an increased risk of seizures and epilepsy. It's anywhere from one and 800 to one and 5000 depending on what you read. It's twice as likely if you get the MMR v so that there is a combo vaccine of measles, mumps rubella with varicella. And I've never used that vaccine because the data is clear in the literature that you've you're doubling what's already a high risk, so you're making it twice as risky. So they used to do the measles, mumps rubella split out, and when that was available, I used to do that, but it hasn't been available since 2008. So we're stuck with what we got to get the measles, mumps, rubella protection, we just have one vaccine available to us. But it does carry that risk. And so one of the things we're doing on our show is just bringing to the world the information that there are risks, and we're not anti vaccine, but we just want risk awareness. And so thank you for coming on the show. And sharing the story. Thank you so much. Do you have any final tips you'd like to share? Do your research? Yeah.
Cuz, you know, we would get like the pamphlets. But honestly, I never really read them. You know, I just thought, Oh, it's good for you. So just do your research.
Dr. Paul 1:25:48
Yeah, it's not for everybody. So if I can read between the lines, just with your words, and I'm looking at your eyes, I don't blame you, if I know what you're feeling. Maybe at least I've got a sense of it, we're so close, and I can feel your energy. If you had to make that choice over again, you would not have taken that vaccine. And folks, it doesn't mean there's a right or wrong. It's just that as you get more informed, if we're going to honor informed consent, where you truly you, the parent have the option to do or not do a medical procedure. That's where we need to get right. And we just need more information we need we need more choice, and we need proper information so we can make good decisions. So, you know, living with a seizure disorder is not fun. Right? I mean, you I sense you, it's just dread. But you might have to experience another seizure for
sure. No, it's every night. It's, you know, it's gotten better. I finally wonder sleep in a room. Guilty. She slept with us for five min. I know, she's getting too old for that. But she's always in the back of my head, you know, and her seizures are mostly quiet. So you can't hear him. So it's like, there's not a perfect monitor out there that's going to track those seizures and whenever So, it's hard because, you know, there's been times where we've had to rush or the, the ER because she's not breathing. She's her stats were really low one year. Yeah. And then she and if he's having another seizure, when she was in the or, yeah, it's just scary.
Dr. Paul 1:27:44
As a parent boy, he would have to be vigilant, right?
Yeah. You never know. cuz she's had some at school too. And then all this kids are like, one kid was making a rumor about her having a heart attack and like, oh, my goodness, please educate these kids, you know? Yeah. It's
Dr. Paul 1:28:03
I say, you know, when people like to go off to war and be heroes, right? Well, you're one of our heroes. Because if vaccines are helpful to the, to the population, and certainly the measles vaccine is very effective. You know, 95% of people with one shot have protection. It works. And it's fairly long lasting, too. But there are these, you know, side effects. And it's no picnic. So you're, you're one of our heroes. So thank you, you know, all the hero moms that are willing to share this story. It really means a lot. And I really appreciate your honest, this and your open heart. If you wanted to give any last tip. That's your audience right there. If you want to look in that camera and tell them whatever you want to tell them
just basically what I've already said before. Do your research.
Dr. Paul 1:28:57
Yeah. But we're here for you all at against the wind doctors in science under fire, doing your research for you, or at least making a stab at it. But please get yourself informed. Push for informed consent. And mandatory vaccine laws really have no place in the situation where the information is mixed. And the danger is not imminent. Right. So thanks again for coming on our show. Appreciate it.
This is really exciting news. I mean, I don't hear it on mainstream media much. I think you you were really excited to get this information out. You created a YouTube video. What was the response to that?
Dr. Peter McCullough 1:29:47
why I've never been on social media before. And we had this exciting breakthrough published in the American Journal of Medicine. We had some signals from others that actually was the first paper from the medical literature. That taught doctors how to work with drugs to treat COVID-19. And so my daughter suggested I made a YouTube video. So I made four slides from the original American Journal medicine paper, which included medical doctors, cardiologists, nephrologist, critical care doctors, we had ophthalmologist for instance, as well as an electrophysiologist. Because the early regimens featured hydroxychloroquine, we wanted opinions on safety of hydroxychloroquine, over a short duration. So this paper had four key slides that I made a YouTube video. And it promptly went viral as you can imagine, I mean, there were 10s of 1000s, if not hundreds of 1000s of downloads. And I was shocked when, after about a week or so it was struck down by YouTube stating that it violated terms of the community.
Dr. Paul 1:30:53
Yeah, I, back in April, when the whole thing just started, I scrambled to put together a book at that point is, you know, there weren't that many articles out there. Now. There's 10s of 1000s, if not more, and I was censored for the same reason it didn't Well, actually, my letter from I was trying to publish it on Amazon was that it didn't meet community guidelines. So there's the censorship that's happening in mainstream social media and in the news, that's what actually be interested in your opinion. Why is that happening?
Dr. Peter McCullough 1:31:26
Well, YouTube has been fairly explicit about this, and I think fairly so. They stated that their content that they want to present to the viewers is going to be in lines with the CDC. And it makes sense the CDC doesn't publish treatment guidelines at all. So the CDC doesn't address early treatment. And since our paper did address early treatment, our paper fills a void, that none of the government agencies address early treatment, it makes sense that YouTube, strike it down. So YouTube is going to be a relatively bland, generic representation of CDC data. And the Center for Disease Control basically, is an epidemiologic unit that's reporting on the pandemic from an epidemiologic perspective. And the CDC is largely addressing, well, people so contagion control, which is wearing masks and social distancing addresses while people vaccination addresses, well, people, you know, I'm a doctor, and my greatest interest like yours is to treat sick people and treating sick people in it for a medical problem, which is a fatal medical emergency crisis is where the benefit, of course, is going to be massive. So we've published recent paper on this about what's the public health impact, far and away the largest public health impact is to treat acutely sick patients, and avoid hospitalization and death and bring them to the other side of natural immunity, much lower in terms of public health impact would be any efforts on contagion control. vaccination in low risk patients there is just going to be a low impact in terms of the pandemic. So if we want to keep hospitalizations down and keep deaths down, we need to keep up the pressure on early treatment, keep up the message and early treatment, every American ought to be activated when they get COVID-19. Whether they get it naturally, or they get it after vaccination. So now we're seeing the cases of post vaccination COVID-19 come in, they look to be about the same severity. The recently, CDC has reported on 5800 cases 7% required hospitalization. So it looks like the same COVID-19 infection. The CDC has recently reported now that in the United States, we have about 14 circulating variants, the most common variant we currently have is the United Kingdom variant. And we have relatively little of the original SARS Coby to uhand wild type virus. So we're in the world of a blend of mutant strains, early treatment, using multiple drugs handles all the strains of infection.
Dr. Paul 1:34:06
That's good news, folks, because you hear on the news all the time, these new strains, they're not perhaps not covered by the vaccine. early treatment is key. Thank you for highlighting that for us.
Well, welcome to our new segment of against the wind. And Brenda, it's so great to have you back. You are the Public Policy Director of informed choice Washington and the host of an informed life radio and so much more. And thank you for your roll on against the wind, bringing the most important things that are in the news, or at least some of the things that we're just not getting clear in our mainstream media. So I know you're going to cover today some really important things I happen to be in Maui getting over here. If you have been vaccinated, you're spared a second COVID test. So that's just an interesting sort of little tidbit. But um, sensing a lot of coercion, sort of public pressure to be vaccinated or to wear masks, but if you're vaccinated, you don't have to wear a mask. So all this, you know, pressure. What's your sense about this mask issue burnin depth. So
Bernadette Pajer 1:35:18
I'm just going to go through and show you, from my perspective, why I see this as so very dangerous, especially for children. So, you know, I want to talk about taking action to save the children regarding new mask rules and vaccine co administration. So everybody's aware now that the President Biden and the CDC have made the announcement that if you're vaccinated, you can take off your mask. If you're not, you cannot, it's coming down to that simple vaccine, you're free to take up your masks. And you know, there's no there's no gray area, nothing in between here. That's it. And it doesn't even make sense because as we know, these ua products have not been shown to prevent infection, or transmission, or serious cases, hospitalizations or deaths. So here's the CDC own numbers that show hospitalized or fatal vaccine breakthrough cases reported to the CDC as of May 10 1359, and 223 of those were deaths. And they admit that the breakthrough infections reported to CDC likely are an are under counted this week, we don't know for sure how many and what total breakthrough cases, they decided to stop telling us they're not going to tell us anymore, only the ones that are hospitalized and died. Now when you're pushing out a product to billions of people, and you're coercing them, and you're saying you can do this if you get vaccinated, all of that pressure coming from everywhere. But you're not counting how many people are actually getting sick despite being vaccinated. Anyway. This is so unacceptable. Just It's crazy. And then we know it burn it up, man
Dr. Paul 1:37:08
interrupt just from Yes. Yeah, use the term EU a Could you explain that? Because I think some viewers may not know what that means.
Bernadette Pajer 1:37:17
Right. So either way, is emergency use authorization only, none of the products are fully licensed by the FDA, they haven't been through all the proper safety testing no long term safety data at all. And under emergency use authorization people have to be told the option to opt out. And because you legally have to let people opt out what they're doing instead is using coercion.
Dr. Paul 1:37:42
Right? They there. Thank you for clarifying that.
Bernadette Pajer 1:37:45
Yeah. And so it is unethical to create a situation where somebody who would say no to a medical intervention based on their own health needs and their own research on the product, to coerce them to make that choice, because they want to keep their job, they want to go to school, they want to attend a game, they want to play a sport, and they want to do so without a mask. They want to do so as free as everybody else. Right? That is, you just can't do that medical decisions should be made based on medical necessity.
Dr. Paul 1:38:22
Right? And I know, I'm gonna ask you, because you're going to cover this. There's a it's coming that this, the public has been told, oh, these vaccines are extremely effective. And of course, what they're using is a relative risk reduction when you think about how effective they are. And even then it was just the reducing mild symptoms they never looked at does it reduce significant illness or hospitalization or death? But the absolute risk reduction? I know you're gonna explain that. And that's so important, folks, I want you to tune into this because this is the crux of the issue. But go ahead and talk about
Bernadette Pajer 1:39:01
Yeah, so that we're definitely Yeah, we're definitely heading there. So I think we had a little cut out of connection there. But there's been no mention from the CDC, from President Biden from any state health department about natural immunity. And there are study after study after study showing us that when you get COVID and recover, you have neutralizing antibodies, long cell T cell B cell memory and here's just one of the latest studies out there showing that you're good to go. But there's no mention that anybody who already had COVID is just free to live, you are safer and adding to herd immunity far more with natural immunity than you are with vaccine limited protection. Let's see.
Dr. Paul 1:39:48
Sorry, I'm thank you for that. So that's a very good point, folks. We just don't know the extent to which those who are unvaccinated but actually recover from COVID may actually be the most significant safety net for our population. And it's it's sort of a shame that this is huge push to vaccinate children, when this is an illness that's almost as it is as insignificant as the flu. And children are just not affected in a significant way with COVID-19. And so they should be our natural immunity pool that will help protect society and those who are more vulnerable.
Bernadette Pajer 1:40:26
Exactly. And you know, treatments are available for those who need it. And the silence on treatments is also unethical of what's happening. We need early treatment for the children who are susceptible, that you know, it is available, and it's tragic. It's not happening. But what's happening now with this, you know, vast unvaccinated populations. And you know, I gave an example of this article here prepare for the two states of Washington vaccinated and unvaccinated and businesses and churches and just so many places, in in some states, not all states, some states are completely open up and free. They're creating separate areas and separate rules. It is just the worst segregation and discrimination I've ever seen. Absolutely not based on the science. And where I'm really concerned about is for the children. So can you imagine after a year of your life being restricted and shut down, everything you love to do kept from you. suicide rates, you know, this past year have urges in children. It's just heartbreaking. But so now imagine you're you're you're going to a gym, you're signing up for a sport and they say if you're vaccinated, you don't have to wear a mask. If you're not vaccinated, you have to wear a mask. So here's this child whose parents are very concerned about the safety of these ua product and they're opting not to get that child vaccinated at this time. So here, the child shows up, they're the only one who has to wear a mask and all the other kids are looking at him like Dude, how come you have to wear that? What's wrong with you? Right? You know, you know, kids are Oh, yeah, kids are always so kind to each other. No, there's gonna be teasing, bullying. And even if they're kind, that child will feel ostracized, and you know, the, the 12 to 18 year olds, it's a very vulnerable emotional stage, that's when you want to fit in, right? You're making friends and you want to be like the other kids and hang out, there will be suicides because of this segregation. And the feeling of being ostracized, these children are already psychologically in a bad place. And if you do this, because their parents are trying to medically protect them. No, we have got to stand up against that. And so then, you know, so there's that whole mask segregation issue, and then we get the very fact that the FDA has now authorized the Pfizer vaccine for 12 to 15 year olds, and the ACP, which is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, they looked at the data that the Pfizer presented to them. Remember, the FDA does not do their own independent studies. CDC does not do their independent studies, they trust with a company that's making billions of dollars on these products. Give them right.
Dr. Paul 1:43:12
And the data on children was rather limited of the number of large, very small numbers. Yeah, it's it's a grand experiment. Basically,
Bernadette Pajer 1:43:20
it's a grand experiment, there was about 2000, a little more 2000 kids in the study, half got placebo, half got the vaccine. It was very short, just a couple of months run. And in the vaccine arm, they claim none of the children had evidence of infection. And 16 children had evidence of infection in the placebo arm, which pretty much though, when you look at the numbers, it made the placebo. If you're really taking this clinical trial as gospel truth, it means that the shot was 100% effective, but the saline placebo was 98.4% effective without any side effects. And without taking the risk, you know, give me the placebo. Yeah, but
Dr. Paul 1:44:05
that's the absolute risk reduction. It's amazing. It's, it doesn't make much difference, folks. Yeah. So
Bernadette Pajer 1:44:10
the to explain the different relative risk means how many got, you know, who got the vaccine, got the infection, compared to the people in the control group who got the infection. But what was the actual risk of any of these kids even getting sick at all? Well, the risk was just 16 kids out of almost 1000 kids in that control arm, which is just 1.6% of the kids. So the risk of these children even getting COVID at all was 1.6%. And so the absolute risk reduction is 1.6%. So parents do you want to give your children an experimental product that has record numbers of adverse events and death. reported to the vaccine adverse event reporting system that has no long term safety data. Do you really want to take that risk? Especially when your child is it so low risk of serious infection? and treatments are available? Yeah. And it's not just in kids. So I just grabbed this is a great Lancet article COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness the elephant not in the room, and it just shows that the AR r for the Astra Zeneca vaccine is only 1.3%. moderna is 1.2 Johnson and Johnson point nine three, and it describes some of the others not yet in this country. So that is the absolute risk reduction folks published this is known. It is miniscule the benefit?
Dr. Paul 1:45:50
Yeah, resinous we now know are enormous, but they're not being covered. This is why we want to bring this information to you. Thank you, Bernadette. That's awesome. Yeah, you're welcome.
Bernadette Pajer 1:46:00
And then we're gonna move to the next big topic, which really has me. I mean, I'm not exaggerated to say I was almost in the fetal position when they made this announcement. Because the ACP has now said, there's no restriction as to timing of when you get these vaccines, you can get them with other vaccines, even though and here is from their own fact insert there. There is no information on the coadministration of the Pfizer, biontech COVID-19 vaccine with other vaccines, zero inflammation, zero clinical trials, zero safety studies, they didn't even do them in animals to see what would happen. And here we have 12 year olds, right? What vaccine are they pushing on 12 year olds Gardasil with its highly reactive genic, aluminum, HS Agilent, that Merck won't even give us the formula for the worst,
Dr. Paul 1:47:02
immune stimulating as far as over stimulating the immune system, type of aluminum, the only add event that is so it was not the only but it is the most activating, as you said. And so yes, you can give that vaccine that we know is the most dangerous ever. And now add to it one of these experimental COVID vaccines that are even more dangerous than that. It's mind boggling.
Bernadette Pajer 1:47:27
It's mind boggling. And it's in its it's criminal, it truly is so apparent won't know that. They'll go and the doctor say, Oh, the ACP said it's fine to give the Gardasil with, it's perfectly safe. That's what they will be told. And I just can't imagine what is going to happen. And I just know that a child is going to be seriously injured or killed by the coadministration. It's bad enough that they might be harmed from the the known mechanism, mechanisms of injury and adverse things that can happen because of the COVID vaccine themselves. But you add this other and I, we have got to get the word out Dr. Paul, this cannot happen. They are using our children using us as guinea pigs. And I am I want to make a note on my on these bullet points that you're seeing right there. The first one COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines may now be administered without regard to timing. That was in the original packet at the ACP meeting. The next two bullet points were not. So there was public comment. And for the first time in this, this past year, they must have been getting a lot of hate mail. They actually seem to have mostly authentic people speaking and some of the most wonderful public comments were given there on informatory swat.org. I've got a post about this, and you can listen to them, I recorded them, they took a break after public comment. And when the AC IP came back, they had added these two statements based on public comment. I've never seen them do that before. And they added it is unknown whether reactogenicity is increased with coadministration, including with other vaccines known to be more reactive genic, such as advented vaccines. And when deciding whether to go administer with COVID-19 vaccines providers could consider whether the patient is behind or at risk of becoming behind on recommended vaccines and the reactogenicity profile of the vaccines. So then then went around the room and they asked whoever wanted to speak Okay, why did you vote how you voted, and all they all had one reason for voting for coadministration. They said we don't want to miss an opportunity to vaccinate. They knew there's zero safety stet science they knew they have no idea what's going to happen to these children when they get them at once but they don't want them to get behind and I tell you what, I don't Have it on a slide. But I do have it on our website, fierce pharma within hours of this announcement, published an article that said Merck and Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are so happy with this decision, because their profits have been falling because sales have been dropping because people were delaying vaccines in order to make sure they didn't get it at the time of getting the COVID shot. And now they're delighted by the news. So you know, makes you wonder how much did ACI p How much were they being pressured to take away the limitation of coadministration. So I do have a post on our website, you know, and I borrowed from a famous ad that targeted children. So Mom, dad did, you know, zero safety studies for getting both of these shots at the same time? And so, you know, I'm doing a call to action here, Dr. Paul, everybody listening, we have to tell everybody everywhere to stop the segregation of children. Don't let them set up two tiered places so that the children feel ostracized and have their emotional, psychological social lives undermined. More, you know, they cannot handle it enough is enough. Stop it. Right. And stop the coadministration Oh, I need to fix this slide. It says tax it should say Vax. And, and really question COVID vaccine children, teens and young adults who are not at risk of serious disease, you know, where's the risk benefit for them? natural immunity is more protective because it prevents infection and transmission. And, yeah, so we just we have to just get loud.
Dr. Paul 1:51:48
Yeah, thank you, Barry, that I think it's so important for our viewers to understand that natural immunity is superior, that's becoming clear, this vaccine is not very effective. And it is extremely dangerous. And children are almost at zero risk. So those parents who sort of can wrap their intelligent mind around that issue and save their children from this vaccine. I'm pretty sure, let's fast forward a year, obviously, we're gonna need more data, you will be so glad you did. And for those of you who've already, for whatever reason your child's been vaccinated, we're not trying to put any blame, we're not trying to make you feel bad. You know, it's done, what's done is done. It's okay. If your child will probably be fine. But if you still have the opportunity to protect your child in a different way, by becoming informed, please do so. And wait for more data if you can.
Bernadette Pajer 1:52:46
Yeah, and I need to add one more thing there. Dr. Pol, is that doctors are really scrambling to find solutions to some of these vaccine injuries that they're seeing. And while there's no hard data yet out there, it's being reported that ivermectin is able to help people not only with long haul COVID, but some of the injuries being reported after COVID-19 vaccine. So I encourage parents to go explore the, you know, FL CCC, Alliance, healthy immunity now.org. Many of the protocols that were found to help with COVID also help with COVID injury. There's no guarantee here that it's it's a, you know, it's being explored. And what's absolutely tragic is billions and billions and billions of dollars are spent on the COVID vaccines and pushing the COVID vaccines. I haven't seen a federal dime spent to figure out how to help the people who are injured.
Dr. Paul 1:53:48
Yeah, you know, a huge thing that physicians and people who are taking care of those who have been injured are gonna have to deal with. Did you have any closing thoughts you wanted to share?
Bernadette Pajer 1:54:02
Just everybody talked this spread the word.
Dr. Paul 1:54:05
Thanks again. Thanks for watching. I'm Dr. Paul.
Thanks for watching. I pledged you to bring to you honest and vital content that's going to help you first do no harm to yourself or to your children. help me spread the truth and share this on social media and with your friends at doctors in science.com. This is gonna be a show every other week. And as soon as we get adequate funding, we're going to bring this to you weekly. We stand together for medical freedom and informed consent, only you should decide what's injected into your body. So I look forward to running with you against the wind. Go to our website doctors in science comm sign up. Donate if you can. Let's make this the weekly show the nation's been waiting for. I'm Dr. Paul
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
Support Dr. Paul:
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DR PAUL'S 25% PROFESSIONAL DISCOUNT APPLIED AT CHECKOUT
Dr. Paul's Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health- from Pregnancy Through Your Child's Teen Years.
The Vaccine-Friendly Plan is a place to start researching your decision on whether or not to vaccinate according to the CDC recommendations.
Dr. Paul's book, The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, may not align with his latest findings on the Vaxxed-Unvaxxed data. However, it still serves as a valuable tool for those who follow the CDC schedule. The book offers peer-reviewed information encouraging parents and guardians to think critically about vaccine decisions. While Dr. Paul cautions against following the Vaccine-Friendly Plan, it can still be a helpful resource for those seeking a starting point for their vaccine journey.
Dr. Paul's research: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674/pdf, though wrongfully retracted as shown in this study: Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate clearly shows that those children who were not vaccinated were much healthier than those who followed the Vaccine-Friendly Plan.
Opiate addiction is the single most significant public health crisis facing Americans—it affects over 2 million people and kills 115 of them every day.