SHOW 37: TRANSCRIPT
Dr. Paul 0:00
welcome folks to against the wind doctors in science under fire. Today's show has Dr. Henry Ely back again with detailed information on breakthrough infections. Yes, that's COVID vaccine failures, and he's covering hospitalizations, the data and the manipulation of the data. That's misleading folks on what's actually going on. Is it the vaccine? Or is it the unvaccinated Luke Yamaguchi, a functional nutritionist, health educator and the founder of gut resolution, recently published a masterpiece article in the defender, the Children's Health defense magazine defender, he highlights the three major flaws in the FDA risk benefit analysis of data. And then we close out with Bernadette. This time she's teaching you to be the news investigator because folks, parents if you're listening, the question is, Should I give my child the COVID-19 vaccine. It's on the fast track to being approved right down to six months of age. So we're going to go through that the ACI P process. And the decision that was just made, you can now co administer the COVID vaccine with any other vaccine. Enjoy the show.
Dr. Paul from the heart. It's Valentine's week, folks. So you got it. I'm going to talk about love. I think love is actually the answer. But before we get to that, I want to ask you a question. Have you felt lonely? I know I have. This COVID year or two has been something I've got so many patients and loved ones struggling with depression anxiety. And I think sometimes frankly, loneliness. Loneliness is not a comfortable feeling. The problem is, we don't want to run from it. Because then it's still right there. We haven't dealt with it. dwelling on it. Well, that just gets to pressing. So figuring this out, where does it come from? That's key. What I've found is I need love. And so I want to first thank all of you watching so many of you send love, you support everything that I'm doing, and our team is doing. And I just can't thank you enough that has really helped fill the gap. But when I'm laying alone in bed, and perhaps I'm just falling into some loneliness, that's a special moment. And when I listened to my heart, I realized I need God. That's an energy and a love. And a source that if I open to it, so sometimes I'll do breathing, you've seen me educate a little bit about breathing on this show where you breathe in love and breathe out. stress or anxiety. But when I'm feeling especially lonely, I needed to just breathe in God and be open. Because I've tried this when I'm not really opening myself up. And it just doesn't seem to work. It doesn't pull that loneliness away. But when I really open, just be open, guess what? It's incredible. God's love is absolutely incredible. And it's there for you just as there for me. We are all called to love, folks. That's my message for this Valentine's week. I love you. I appreciate you. And thank you for your support of this show. God bless.
Welcome, Dr. H. Dr. Ely, it is so good to have you back on against the wind.
Dr. Henry Ealy 3:33
Alright, so good to be here, Dr. Paul of love coming back on the show.
Dr. Paul 3:37
I know you've been doing some work recently about breakthrough infections. And I wonder if we could pull up that data because, you know, mainstream is still a lot of times saying that all this is a disease of the unvaccinated. And, you know, the blame is on on the text. And and I think the data does say something different, doesn't it?
Dr. Henry Ealy 3:58
And what they're using is a blame and shame game here. Right? And you can't say you can't use blame and shame and claim to be bringing the country together. You know, those things don't work. So when you hear blame and shame, you know, it hasn't there's an agenda behind it. Whenever there's an agenda. There's money behind it. Wherever there's money. There's a reason this topic right here, can a vaccinated person be counted as unvaccinated? The answer to that is undeniably Yes. So when we look at this, the CDC put in specific rules to limit the number of breakthrough cases. A lot of people go well, what's vaccine breakthrough? A good question. We never have called it that before we always called it vaccine failure, or specifically vaccine efficacy failure. They got rebranded in 2001 into vaccine breakthrough. So when you hear a vaccine breakthrough, equated to vaccine failure, I'm going to be calling it vaccine failure from now on on screen you'll see breakthrough. What the CDC did was erected a bunch of rules to limit the The accumulation of vaccine failures. One of the things they did was they made sure that every person had to be symptomatic to be evaluated. Another thing they did was they made sure that everybody had to have a PCR value, a cycle threshold value lower than 28. And what that does is it removes a lot of false positives, right? They didn't do this for the unvaccinated, but they did this for what they deemed fully vaccinated. And then they put some additional rules in whereby a person cannot be deemed fully vaccinated unless they've had both shots Pfizer, both shots moderna in IID. One shot Johnson and Johnson, and it has been at least 14 days since the last shots, there's all these little specific rules and that's to limit the the amount of failures. What it does is in this country is we have four distinct groups. We have four discrete distinct data groups. We have the fully vaccinated with a booster we have the fully vaccinated and no booster we have the partially vaccinated and we have the unvaccinated. here's the rub. Dr. Pol. The unvaccinated clearly are going to be in the unvaccinated group. But the partially vaccinated people only got one out of the two shots, or it hasn't been 14 days since their last shot. They get counted as unvaccinated as well. A person who's gotten both shots, but it hasn't been 14 days, they get counted as unvaccinated as well. And that's a way to take from these two groups here and add them to the unvaccinated so that you can make this look like it is a pandemic, quote unquote, of the unvaccinated when really it's a crisis of the unhealthy and severely nutrient deficient. So how are other countries organizing this data? Just for comparison, let's go look at Scotland just really quickly. Scotland actually does it the right way. unvaccinated one shot two shot three shot, right I mean, and you can look at the data. And we see his guess which guess which group does the best? The unvaccinated huh Dr. Paul, that sounds like something you unearth in some studies you've published previously as well. Right? Yeah. So when we look at efficacy signals, how many people The question becomes how many fully vaccinated people still contracted? COVID. Because that's failure that's breakthrough, what they want to call breakthrough. We're gonna call failure, right. Failure to protect? Well, what's interesting here are there are other ways the CDC has limited the accumulation of this data. Number one, the CDC stopped reporting on cases, failure cases in April of 2021. They stopped reporting on hospitalization and deaths fail due to vaccine failure on October 30 2021,
Dr. Paul 7:52
hold on, hold on, hold on, I gotta stop you. I remember hearing that and reading that. But I had forgotten that. Are you trying to tell me that even to this day, they only report people who are unvaccinated, they won't report the these other groups,
Dr. Henry Ealy 8:07
they won't report these numbers, what they've done is created a arbitrary statistic called vaccine effectiveness that they've termed vaccine effectiveness so that they don't have to report on vaccine failure. It's just a total marketing campaign. They're not reporting any of these numbers, they stopped reporting all of these numbers, the CDC did opt in on October 30, of 2021. So what we did was we went down to the state health department level and looked at every state health department to see who's actually reporting these numbers. And what we learned was very alarming. First and foremost, only 28 Out of the 51 public health departments when you include Washington, DC are reporting these that's another way to keep vaccine failure numbers down. Even with all these rules, and only roughly a little over half of the public health department's reporting. I mean, places like Florida aren't reporting. Texas hasn't updated their numbers since October. I mean, and we know the vast majority of breakthrough cases have occurred in the month of January. So we know these numbers that we have up here, which are significant are grossly under reported right now. So in November, there were 1.4 million breakthrough cases meaning times that the people who were fully vaccinated still got sick, right 1.4 million times by December that had grown to 2.5 million more almost 2.6 million, but by January, Dr. Pol, that exploded to over 6 million. All right, and that's again in only 28 public health departments reporting. So this is clear that these shots are failing to protect they're there and there's no reason to use a booster because they're they're not protecting to begin with. So this is this this is damning right here. Yep. Then Then they say, well, the hospitals are filled with the unvaccinated. Well, yeah, if you count a partially vaccinated versus unvaccinated or a person who's gotten both shots, and it's only been 13 days as unvaccinated? Yeah, it's filled with unvaccinated. But that's not an accurate. That's misleading, right? That's intentionally misleading, right? Even with just evaluating fully vaccinated people over the age, excuse me, where it's been 14 days since their last shot, there still have been an only 28 Health Department's reporting. There still have been over 138,000 confirmed hospitalizations in the fully vaccinated, and there's been as of January 32,000, confirmed deaths. Yeah. From the infection in the fully vaccinated. Yeah,
Dr. Paul 10:43
this is this is obscene. Let's chat a little bit about something. What's also being missed? Is it not is that vaccine injury, which we haven't even talked about yet, right, is stacked right after people get the vaccine. And so, so what are being termed if you're going to classify all these people who just got the vaccine and then ended up in the hospital as unvaccinated? So now it also is the truth? Is it not that almost all the vaccine injuries because they're stacked during those first few days after vaccine are also being labeled as unvaccinated?
Dr. Henry Ealy 11:21
Well, let's go ahead and take a look at that. We can actually pull this on screen and look at it together. Let me just pull this up real quick. Here. We know that there are over 121,000 confirmed hospitalizations. So let's see how many of those hospitalizations happen within 13 days. I never I haven't asked this question yet. It's pretty Let's go. Let's go nerd out for a second here. All right, so now we have all of our key criteria. Let's see how many of these hospitalizations actually occurred within 14 days so they could be counted as unvaccinated hospitalizations that There you go. 69,166 of the injuries and various can be counted and I'm sure are counted as unvaccinated hospitalizations. This is going to be people who are considered fully vaccinated. So it's been they've gotten every shot in the series. And it's been at least 14 days, they still tested positive for PCR. Excuse me for COVID using PCR, they had to be hospitalized as a result of having symptoms for COVID. Alright, so there's 138,000 through January that we have so far, when we when we go over here to various what this is saying is that this is an additional 69,000 that are counted as unvaccinated because this occurred within four. So these people are not eligible to be evaluated for vaccine failure because they were hospitalized before the 14 day time period, we should
Dr. Paul 13:04
be adding this number.
Dr. Henry Ealy 13:07
You could add it for breakthrough. But if you're going to add that to break through, you have to add all the partially vaccinated to see what I'm saying they've manipulated the data so much that everything that they're reporting is fraudulent at this point and and it's completely misleading. This is this right here 69,000. These folks would be deemed on vaccinated based upon the definitions The CDC has constructed. And they would go into their metric to prove vaccine effectiveness. That's how crazy this these people actually be used to support will be used to support that the hospitals are being overrun by the unvaccinated even though they're there because they have a vaccine injury.
Dr. Paul 13:51
Right. Wow. Maybe let's just pivot to you were speaking at a recent event here in Salem, Oregon. Right? I unfortunately, I was not able to go give me a little recap of that event
Dr. Henry Ealy 14:03
had close to 2000 people maybe a little bit more there at the capitol in Salem, Oregon, on a Tuesday afternoon. Right, let that sink in. Right. They actually set up opportunities for us to speak with elected officials. We had over a two day period we had three Yeah, three meetings with elected officials to go over the data, and expressly to talk about the explosion in vaccine failure cases. Senator James Manning, who we know is a really good dude. Democrat at northern North Eugene West Eugene and Veneta district seven, he was supposed to meet with this we met with his staff. And you know, it just it didn't feel right. You know what I mean? It felt like they they didn't really want to know, they know that there's something there but they don't know Want to know because to do so would mean potentially having to break with party lines based upon having integrity. And we know, Senator Manning has a lot of integrity, he served his country proudly his whole life. So we are eagerly anticipating getting another conversation hopefully with him directly. But then we got to, by the end talk to someone who actually did care. And this is representative noble here in the state of Oregon. We worked with his team and I gotta tell you, it was one of the most jaw dropping conversations we were supposed to have 15 minutes, it went over an hour, where they allowed us to go through and break down Oh Ha, and how Oh Ha is hiding data and how each day is manipulating data, and how the CDC is manipulating data and, and really break it down in a way that was easy for everybody to understand. So we were really privileged the big crime here for me, Dr. Paul has been, we've been trying to get something as simple as vitamin D. and other nutrients issued guidance issued for them since April of 2020. We're now approaching two years of of this right. And we still can't issue something as simple as nutritional guidance, when there's clear safety signals being violated and clear. Efficacy signals failures occurring with the shots, it's like they've they've thrown all their eggs into one basket, and that basket has fallen to the floor and all the eggs have cracked, and they want to pretend like there's no other alternatives. Yeah, you know, so, you know, it's nice to hear from an elected official, right, that that they actually do care, right.
Dr. Paul 16:45
Yeah. And I have to second your message about vitamin D, I've been teaching my patients, you know, 10,000 patients this same message, I, we hit it, my whole team hits this message every visit, basically, it's I think I have a population that's probably so much more aware of the importance of vitamin D, and they're taking it nice. And I think perhaps it's no coincidence, I haven't had a single patient end up in the hospital the entire past two years.
Dr. Henry Ealy 17:12
I would love to see that data. And, and congratulations. I mean, this is this is what a good doctor looks like, Hey, I've done the research. There's well over now 200 peer reviewed studies, confirming vitamin D, we just had the Israeli study come out just a couple days ago, I think it was last Friday, or something that showed that, you know, there's a definite and definitive correlation between vitamin D levels and severity of symptomatology, and that's going to correlate with hospitalization clearly, yeah. And if we just get people above 50 nanograms per milliliter, their recovery is virtual certainty. And we know from previous studies that only 2.7% of those people even require any medical attention, let alone hospitalization. So you know, I'm, I'm, I am in awe and gratitude for you getting your staff on on board with it and getting your patient base on board with it. And being a shining example of what good medical practice looks like.
Dr. Paul 18:11
Thank you. And I know you you teach in this space. So thank you for all your efforts. And folks, and Dr. Ely, you can weigh in on this, the usual recommendation you're going to get from standard medical people is to take you know, at most 1000, I use of vitamin d3. And frankly, as deficient as we all are, that's woefully inadequate. My experience has been adults need at least 5000 I use and it should be coupled with K 8k Two vitamin K two. So that assures the added calcium that might be absorbed into the bone where it belongs, therefore, you don't have risk with vitamin D. If you take it with k two, and you get an adequate level, check your levels, if you're taking high dose and make sure you're getting to that optimal 50 to 80 nanograms per milliliter that you were talking about. I have tested 1000s of patients and almost to a person it is less than 20. Unless they're supplementing.
Dr. Henry Ealy 19:06
Yes, especially in the northern climates, and especially during the winter. This is this is this is one plus one equals two as much as you're going to get in medicine, when you know it never ceases to amaze me, Dr. Paul, how they want to attack something like vitamin D and say, well, we don't have enough evidence. We don't have enough evidence. We don't have enough evidence 200 studies, how many how much more evidence do you need? Right? I mean, usually it's all we need is one or two or three major studies, especially if they're confirmatory. And you go look, come on, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck by Monday works. Right. Right. It but then you look at the their justification for the shots. We have one clinical trial on shots, and it was it was fraudulent data in there. And we have whistleblowers coming out saying that it was done improperly and that, you know, and that there's over 7000 patients or I should say 7000 participants who got removed from the final safety data and there was over 6000 participants who got removed from the final efficacy analysis, you know, and that's okay, we only have one there. But 200 studies on vitamin D, and that's like, Come on this is for you to even say that it requires you to, you know, really resign from your job at this point if you're in public health.
Dr. Paul 20:19
Yeah. And sadly, it feels to me, like almost every public health department in the country is just sort of promoting this vaccine only way out of this. When we already know that's, that's a failed policy.
Dr. Henry Ealy 20:37
It's a failed policy to the writing is on the wall. You see, Israel even took down their green passport. That's how that's how bad of a fail. It was in Israel. I mean, you're talking to most vaccinated population in the world. So that's our great. There's our great experimental group right there, you know, unfortunately for those people, right, and, you know, you're looking at this and they've had four shots, and they have the highest instances of cases, hospitalizations, I just read a report where over 80% of all hospitalizations in Israel were due to are due are in the fully vaccinated and boosted group. Right. So what if the vaccine we had something that they termed that I couldn't stand back then I still don't like it now, but I think it's relevant today. And it was called vaccine preventable disease. Right? You mean, you've heard that term all the time to keep this vaccine? It's vaccine preventable. So that's why you should get the shots. Because you could have prevented this if you just got the shots. That's there are been there argument for 20 years? Well, that kind of defines to me what the term vaccine should mean, that it prevents infection. When you go to the emergency use authorization on this. Eu A's were authorized for the shots because of reduction of infective spread, right? No, not symptoms. They weren't approved for a symptom reduction that wasn't in the clinical trials, the reduction of hospital that wasn't in there. 95% efficacy was based upon the relative risk reduction analysis between the control group and the experimental group of infective spread. So their their argument in December of 2020, was that they it prevents the infection, right, as vaccines are claimed to do. Well, if you have
Dr. Paul 22:26
you mentioned relative risk, it's actual absolute right, action was less than 1%.
Dr. Henry Ealy 22:31
Right? It was 1.2%. For Pfizer, it was 0.8% or 0.6%, for a modern and I did and the British Medical Journal group did a great job, you know, with that, or was it Lancet or something? There was a there was a, there was a paper put out on that that was really good. But you know, if it doesn't stop the spread it and then what do you fall back on? Well, we can fall back on this really spacious argument of well, it prevents and reduces symptoms, how could you prove that prove to me that it prevents, that means that you would have to have you'd have to have a study where you have the same person, same demographic, same health, markers, biomarkers, and that you're showing one person got the shot, one person didn't. And and that person who got the shot, had less symptoms and had to go, you would have where is that study? That study doesn't exist
Dr. Paul 23:30
doesn't exist. That's the kind of research that I published. And when you actually look comparing unvaccinated Vax, you find a totally different picture,
Dr. Henry Ealy 23:39
which is why they try to come after you because you are doing something very dangerous to the profitability of their lies. You're telling the truth, right? And so when you tell the truth that doesn't sell that doesn't that doesn't help them, you know, make more money. The truth does. This is the same thing, when when you're helping your patients not need you as a doctor, which is supposed to be our goal. We're not making the pharmaceutical industry any money. That's why they don't like folks like
Dr. Paul 24:05
us. What would you like people to know? Going forward right now.
Dr. Henry Ealy 24:11
Going forward right now, I think it's important for us to just stay the course we're on right now. We're, you know, we're all tired and exhausted. But clearly we're winning, you know that. The worst thing they could do would be to call out the law enforcement or the or the military to deal with the truckers convoy is the worst thing they could do right? There. The thing I keep telling everybody, Dr. Paul, they haven't named another variant. Right? where's the where's the next variant? They've always primed the audience for fear with naming the next we knew Omicron was coming well before omachron ever arrived. Right? So what's the next variant? They don't want to name one because they want to backpedal because they know that this has failed and they want to try to take the money and run. So it's up to us to remember how we got here, which is they lied, and they defrauded us and it's important for us to remember what we need to do to take care of our health, nutrients, staying informed, getting outside, moving our bodies hugging, great, my goodness. And it's important for us to make sure that the people who have done wrong are held accountable for this. There's too many people that have suffered too many people that have died on this. And you know, we can't live in a nation, right? We can't live in a nation where this is the new normal. Were putting on a mask every five frickin seconds, rip it off, rip it off, take it off, tell him no, tell him we are done with this and that if they want to be on the right side of history, they'll stand alongside us seeking justice.
Dr. Paul 25:42
Absolutely. And I'm going to do a shout out to some high schoolers. I heard. I read something this morning about some high schoolers back in the Midwest, I believe, yep. who are protesting by taking off their masks, they're being ushered into an auditorium. But just yesterday, one of my staff members got a text message alert from her high school where her son goes, and they're warning about this high school movement to take off masks. And all I can say is, folks, you kids, go for it. Go for it. Kids. It is the time. I mean, if we can have truckers jam up the roads and closed down cities and capitals, kids, you can take your power back where we were never supposed to use these things. They're worthless for what they're deemed to be doing. And we know that so let's see each other's faces. Like you said, Let's hug one another and get back to a whole new way of going forward where we are no longer here's the thing. I think, folks, the CDC, the public health officials have have tipped their hat or hand. They've exposed themselves so incredibly, that we can never ever believe them again. Never not Not again. And I that hurts me to say it. I'm a physician. I was trained in that system. I mean, the CDC Oh, my goodness, they were the the cream of the crop, right? The best people went to the NIH and the CDC. There are still great people working for these systems, but they've been taken over by big money. And now we know that
Dr. Henry Ealy 27:18
you know, Dr. Paul, I'm going to say something that is from one of my favorite figures in history, said, I know and believe there are good people out there and I believe they should prove it.
Dr. Paul 27:33
The truth is there is nothing to fear, but fear itself as it's been well stated over history. So with that message if this information was new to you, I hope it reaches your heart to a point where you can do exactly what Dr. Ely was saying, and start to speak up for what you know to be true. Your heart your instincts, your your intellect, everything tells you that we can now move past what was just smoking mirrors and get back to a really beautiful way of living. Let's not abandon our free country that so many fought for these freedoms and yet we might be letting them slip away. If we just stay quiet.
Welcome Luke Yamaguchi to against the wind doctors and science under fire. It's great to have you back.
Luke Yamaguchi 28:23
Yeah, thank you for having me.
Dr. Paul 28:25
You are a functional nutritionist, an incredible health educator. I've heard you speak so many times, and you're always so spot on, you really do your research, you're dedicated to creating greater well being in our world. Thank you for all you're doing in that regards. You're the founder of gut resolution. Boy, gut health is so important. And then what I am excited to have you share with us is you recently published an amazing article on the Children's Health defense defender magazine that talked about the risks versus the benefits of COVID-19 Vaccines for Children. I was hoping you could explain a little bit of the background of what you found that went into that article.
Luke Yamaguchi 29:07
Yeah, thank you for having me Dr. Povey. Happy to do so. So this is my article that was published in the defender on Children's Health defenses website. And in my article, I critically examined the risk benefit analysis that the FDA relied upon to grant an emergency use authorization for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for children five to 11 years of age. And I show how the FTAs risk benefit analysis was deeply flawed and failed to account for critically important factors such as natural immunity, and had the FDA done a legitimate job of weighing the true risks versus benefits. I think they should have concluded that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination do not outweigh the risks for children in this age group. And so the first thing I want to point out about the FTAs risk benefit analysis shown here was that the margins of benefit were very slim to begin with, especially with regards to the risk of hospitalization and ICU, which is intensive care unit admissions. In boys. For example, the FTAs risk benefit analysis estimated that COVID vaccination would prevent 67 icu stays, and 203 hospitalizations from COVID-19. But this would be at the risk of 57 icu stays, and 156 hospitalizations from myocarditis or pericarditis following vaccination. So just so the audience knows myocarditis and Perry carditis is inflammation of the heart. And just to explain this risk benefit analysis, what we're looking at here is we have the benefits of vaccination. On the left hand column, the blue line graph, and in the right hand column, we have the risks of vaccination. And this is the line graph in orange. And this is looking at Boys five to 11 years of age, they're basically saying if you fully vaccinated 100 million boys between the ages of five to 11, we would expect saying this case, 67 icu stays prevented, but 57 icu stays potentially caused by the vaccine. So very narrow margin of benefit to begin with. But one of the obvious shortcomings of the FTAs risk benefit analysis was that it failed to take into account natural immunity. And the science has shown for some time now that natural immunity is at the very least equal to vaccine induced immunity. And actually, there's science that shows that natural immunity is indeed superior to vaccine immunity. It's important to note then, that according to CDC data, an estimated 42% of children had evidence of prior COVID-19 infection as of June 2021. So Dr. Paul, the FDA presented their risk benefit analysis at the end of October of last year, so that was four months after the date of this data point. So it's quite possible then that about 50% of children, the United States may have already had natural immunity to COVID-19 when the FDA made their decision to authorize Pfizer's COVID vaccine for children five to 11 years of age. And for these kids with natural immunity, the COVID vaccine is basically all risk and no benefit, because these children are already immune to COVID-19 through prior infection. This is a short video clip of that FDA meeting. It's called the verpackt meeting. And in it the FDA Senior Advisor for risk benefit assessment admits that should natural immunity be equal to vaccine induced immunity, then that would result in a 45% reduction of all the benefits and the FDA is risk benefit analysis.
Unknown Speaker 32:34
Basically, you'll have 45 reduction of the order.
Luke Yamaguchi 32:40
Okay, so she says, you know, if the kids have antibodies against COVID-19, and that means they have natural immunity, if natural immunity is equal to vaccine induced immunity that would reduce all the benefits in our risk benefit analysis by 45%. So what I did is I just took the FTAs risk benefit analysis, the same one I showed earlier for five to 11 year old boys, and I conservatively adjusted for just 42% of children having already acquired natural immunity through prior COVID-19 infection. And I did that by reducing the benefits of COVID vaccination by 42%. And when you do the math, and calculate the adjusted benefits of vaccination, we now see that 39 icu stays and 118 hospitalizations are prevented by COVID vaccination, but this is at the risk of 57 icu stays, and 156 hospitalizations, from myocarditis following vaccination, again, for boys five to 11 years of age. So in other words, the risk of hospitalization from vaccine related heart inflammation is greater than the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented by vaccination for boys in this age group after we adjust for natural immunity. Does that make sense? Dr. Paul,
Dr. Paul 33:49
totally makes sense. And in fact, I think it's important to highlight as you alluded to, as of right now, February of 2022, most kids have already developed immunity because I saw the positivity in my practice, go from 5%. Last year to we're about at 50%. This past month. Everybody's getting this COVID. And we you're absolutely right. natural immunity is amazing. So we're reaching that point now, where giving kids this shot is all risk almost and you know, virtually no benefit. They're already immune.
Luke Yamaguchi 34:26
Right? Certainly for the ones who have already gotten COVID-19 recovered from it test positive for antibodies who have natural immunity. The vaccine, as far as I can tell, would be all risk and no benefit because natural immunity is already superior to vaccine induced immunity. So that was one of the major shortcomings of the FTAs risk benefit analysis. And we just looked at the risks versus benefits for vaccination and boys. But this slide shows the FDA is risk benefit analysis for five to 11 year old boys and girls combined. And here we see that the FDA used a myopia carditis incidence rate of 106 cases per million boys and girls that are fully vaccinated. So remember that number 106 cases of myopia carditis per million. The problem is that according to a Kaiser Permanente study out of Portland, Oregon, these authors write the true incidence rate of myopia carditis is markedly higher than the incidents reported to us advisory committees. The author's go on to say, we identified that the encounter text description methodology identified approximately twice as many cases of myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. So this is a chart taken from that paper that Kaiser Permanente research paper, and it shows that the actual incidence rate of myopia carditis following vaccination was 208 cases per million children between the ages of 12 and 17 years of age. And this number 208 is approximately double the myocarditis incidence rate used by the FDA in their risk benefit analysis, which you'll remember was 106. So if we take the FTAs risk benefit analysis for boys and girls and once again adjust for natural immunity by reducing vaccine benefits by 42%. And if we use what we think to be the true myocarditis incidence rate of 200 cases per million, this is what we get. We see that after adjustment 36 icu stays, and 111 hospitalizations are prevented by vaccination. But this is at the risk of 67 icu stays, and 180 hospitalizations from my oh pericarditis following vaccination. So again, we see that the risk of hospitalization from vaccine related heart inflammation is greater than the number of COVID-19 hospitalizations prevented by vaccination, this time for boys and girls after we adjust for both natural immunity, and we use what we think to be the actual myocarditis rate. Any Does that make sense? Absolutely. And the one thing I want to mention is that so we have this 208 cases per million of myopia carditis. And according to the modeling used by the FDA, they said that 87% Dr. Paul, of those myopia carditis cases that are related to vaccination that follow vaccination result in hospitalization, that's how we get this 180 hospitalizations number, and that 32% of those myocarditis cases result in an ICU stay. That's how we got this 67 ICU stay number. And this is incredible to me, because we're being told by you know, the CDC and pundits on media that these myocarditis cases are, quote, unquote, mild cases, how in the world can a mild case 87% of them are ending up in the hospital, these are, you know, young, healthy kids and 32% are ending up in the emergency in the ICU, and they're calling it mild.
Dr. Paul 37:57
Yeah. Now, any ICU stay is not mild, you don't end up in the ICU unless you're critically ill.
Luke Yamaguchi 38:05
And, you know, really, they should be calling them serious adverse events. Because if you have to be hospitalized, or you're not in the ICU, that's a serious adverse event. But this spin is, these are just mild cases, apparently. Um, and so maybe just one more flaw that I'll talk about the FTAs risk benefit analysis was that they used inflated COVID-19 hospitalization data. And what this did is it exaggerated the severity of COVID-19 and children. And by doing this, it also exaggerated the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. And even Tony Fauci has recently admitted that we're over counting the number of children who are hospitalized from COVID-19. This is what he recently said, and then use Take a listen.
Unknown Speaker 38:41
The other important thing is that if you look at the children are hospitalized, many of them are hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to be costs of COVID. And what we mean by that, if a child goes in the hospital, they automatically get tested for COVID. And they get counted as a COVID. Hospitalized individual, when in fact, they may go in for a broken leg, or appendicitis or something like that. So it's over counting the number of children who are quote hospitalized with COVID, as opposed to the cost of COVID.
Luke Yamaguchi 39:21
Okay, so this is a study out of Stanford University as the title of that paper and they say that pediatric COVID-19 hospitalization rates may be inflated by detection of mild or asymptomatic infection via universal screening. That's what Tony Fauci just talked about, right kid goes in for a broken leg, they test him for COVID He comes up positive, he may be asymptomatic or just have very mild symptoms, but that's still classified as a quote unquote COVID-19 hospitalization. These researchers found that 45% of COVID-19 hospital admissions were unlikely to have been caused by SARS cov to the virus that causes COVID-19. This means that reported COVID-19 hospitalization rates likely lead to an overestimate have true disease burden. And Inexplicably, the FDA failed to account for any of this in their risk benefit assessment. And this further skew their analysis wrongly in favor of vaccination. And there were many other flaws in the FTAs risk benefit assessment that I addressed in my article on Children's Health defense, I encourage people to check it out. They can read it in its entirety, there's hyperlinks to all the references, but for the sake of brevity, I'll leave it at that for now. But one more thing I did want to mention is that the country of Sweden has decided against recommending COVID-19 vaccines for children aged five to 11. And if you understand the flaws and shortcomings of the FTAs risk benefit analysis, some of which I just explained now, that it becomes easy to understand why Sweden came to this conclusion. This was reported in Reuters, Sweden has decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged five to 11, arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks of sweetest Sweden Swedish health agency official stated quote, with the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don't see any clear benefit with vaccinating them and quote.
Dr. Paul 41:08
Wow, thank you, Sweden. And thank you, Luke. My goodness. And you know, we're we have looming this coming week, I believe the decision about six month olds to five year olds,
Luke Yamaguchi 41:21
right? I think no data, right. 15 overpack committee is set to meet on February 15, to make that decision of whether they want to expand Pfizer's emergency use authorization for those kids six months, through five years of age. And, you know, the question I have to ask is looking at their risk benefit assessment for five to 11 year olds and seeing how critically flawed it was, and the very many shortcomings that were inherent in that analysis? Are we really going to be able to trust the risk benefit analysis that they use for baby, you know, children, zero to four years of age? And one of my big questions. Dr. Pol? Is that are they going to now account for natural immunity? Because now the CDC seems to be admitting that oh, yeah, they're finally coming around to it. Now, you know, that natural immunity is real. It's a real thing. So we have to ask the question, will the FDA and the verpackt committee account for natural immunity, knowing now that we just you know, we're in February of 2022, so that 42% of children was from June of last year, and we just had a huge peak, a huge wave of Omicron, where Omicron blew through the population? Yeah, it's peaked. Now, it's on a downward trajectory, whether we, you know, have another vaccine or not cases are coming down no matter what, because that's just the natural cycle of the of the waves, right. So we have on Iran, it's peaked, it's coming down. And, you know, I have to ask the question, what percentage of children have already been exposed to COVID-19, the Omicron, Varian or other variants have recovered from it, and who now have natural immunity, and then stand to have no benefit from vaccination? Will the FDA take that into account in their upcoming risk benefit analysis?
Dr. Paul 42:56
Dunt Dunt? Da, will they or will they not?
Unknown Speaker 43:00
The other thing I,
Dr. Paul 43:02
I can tell you from their past experiences, it does not look like they really look at the data. They're on a path to make sure this gets recommended and approved so that they can then remove all liability from the manufacturers of these vaccines, because once it's added to the childhood schedule, now, it's no longer under emergency use authorization. Right.
Luke Yamaguchi 43:24
One last thing I didn't want to mention about the FTAs risk benefit analysis that was just completely mind blowing to me, was that the only literally the only risk that they accounted for was myocarditis and pericarditis. They didn't account for any other risks of vaccination. They didn't account for all of the known vaccine adverse reactions. We're talking there would be Dr. Paul, if you fully vaccinate 100 million children five to 11 years of age, there's going to be hundreds of 1000s of instances of moderate to severe injection site pain, there's going to be 10s of 1000s of cases of fever, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, chills, vomiting, muscle and joint pain. And that's just the vaccine, the known and acknowledged vaccine adverse reactions, not to mention other vaccine adverse events, such as anaphylaxis, cinco lymphadenopathy Bell's Palsy, they didn't account for any of it. Yeah, amazing.
Dr. Paul 44:20
It's just unbelievable. Parents, if you're watching this show, you have to be the defender of your kids because we cannot trust the government agencies. They appear to be captured. There's no other explanation for it. I know there's good people working in these agencies, what they have over these people's heads. I do not know. But it doesn't make any sense. I mean, look, you you and I can look at the data and go it's it's clear as could be. We've got a problem with this vaccine. It's very dangerous. Well, thank you, Luke. This really important information. I think the world is going to be really better off for having had you do this deep dive and making this so clear forever. Buddy. So
Luke Yamaguchi 45:00
thank you, Dr. Paul. Thanks for having me on your show and getting the word out to your audience. If people want to follow my work, they can check out my website got resolution.com And I also recently gave a speech at the unite for medical freedom rally at the Oregon State Capitol building on February 1. And if people want to check out my speech, they can go to my website, Darkside vaccines.com. Click on the media tab and they can find my speech there.
Dr. Paul 45:24
Phenomenal speech, by the way, I listened to every word of it. You did a master job there very well, Dr. Paul. So thanks again for being on the show. Appreciate it. God bless.
Welcome Bernadette back to against the wind, what a privilege it is to have you on the show.
Bernadette Pajer 45:44
Thank you. It's just always such a pleasure to be here and to bring information to your viewers.
Dr. Paul 45:49
Parents. If you're watching this, this is the segment you've got to listen to because Bernadette's going to teach us how to become investigators. And folks, we absolutely must become investigators not just accept news as we hear it from mainstream. You know, the big question is, should I get my child that COVID-19 shot, right? It's coming like a freight train.
Bernadette Pajer 46:09
So as you said, Should I get my child to COVID-19 shot. So for parents new to questioning the recommendations from the doctors in the CDC, this is what they need to know. So pre COVID, those of us in the medical freedom and vaccine safety reform movement knew this. But the vast majority of the public did not. When products enter the market. And by the market, it means when they start putting it pushing it out to your doctor and to pharmacies and say hey, you need to get this. This is the status. So they are not fully studied, then there's no results on whether they cause infertility or cancer in so many other things. None of that is known. The stuff that is known, there usually are some safety signals, very limited participants, very short duration studies. So there's no long term data. And there's all often missing or buried data that becomes revealed later on. Despite all this, the a CIP votes usually to recommend usually 100%. And then after they vote, they will talk about Gee, when are you going to get more data on safety signals meaning when is all the information that come in from when all of the unaware Americans get this product, and we begin to see if they're having any adverse reactions. So after the vote, then it gets pushed out to public health departments to the CDC and your State Department of Health, and it becomes safe and effective period. That's all you're told.
Dr. Paul 47:51
That's all you hear. help our viewers what is a CIP?
Bernadette Pajer 47:54
Oh, thank you. A CIP is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices under the CDC, and there's a lot of conflict of interest there. We don't have time to go into that. So this is where it enters. So I want to give everybody an example. This is about 2018, when they were looking at a brand new hepatitis B vaccine with a novel adjuvant never used in human beings before any comment on using this vaccine the same time with other adjuvant in vaccines.
Unknown Speaker 48:28
We have no data to make a recommendation one way or the other. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 48:35
I think unless there's any further discussion, we will take a vote on this recommendation.
Unknown Speaker 48:41
I want to remind everyone to please check your voting, whatever machine thing, and voting is open.
Unknown Speaker 48:50
Thank you very much. So the voting is completed and it is unanimous to support this recommendation.
Unknown Speaker 48:58
And just anybody around the table, we don't need to go around and verify our votes. But does anybody have any comments they wish to make about their vote?
Unknown Speaker 49:09
So just a slight reservation. I think this is a huge advance and a step forward. I am concerned about that signal that myocardial infarction signal I am concerned about the use of this new adjuvant and certainly urges to continue to look at the post marketing data carefully.
Bernadette Pajer 49:28
So that's the status Dr. Paul, when a product enters the market, and all you hear though, on your end, and all the doctors really are seeing is safe and effective recommended. Okay, so the vaccine product approval process goes through some steps. The companies apply for a new drug application, and then they begin pre licensure clinical trials. Only the drug company does trials. biologics license application is filed. There's an inspection of the manufacturing facility. And then presentation of findings to to the FDA vaccine and related biological Products Advisory Committee goes by Virbac by the drug company only. And then a presentation to the CDC Advisory Committee and that committees, we just saw the video from on Immunization Practices to see if they want to recommend it for the general public usage or specific members of the population like children. Throughout the entire process. Neither the FDA nor any independent party performs any clinical trials. All the data comes from the drug company that is often shielded from any product liability by the 86 Act, or the prep act. And that stands to profit in the billions. Okay. So here, then we move to what's been going on with the COVID shots on May 12, that a CIP group voted to end all restrictions around coadministration of the shots. They voted to say it's okay to get that shot with any other shot, even though there's not a single coadministration study to say it's safe. The public comment in that meeting was so grave and serious and concerning. And it was amazing if anybody wants to go back back and watch that they actually added two bullet points to their slide. When they voted recommendation, they added it is unknown whether reactogenicity is increased with coadministration, including with other vaccines known to be more reactive genic, such as AGID, tended adjuvant in vaccines. And doctors are supposed to consider whether or not somebody is behind on vaccines or might be behind on vaccines. So if you're afraid they might be getting behind on vaccines, it's worth the risk. And rather than waiting two weeks or a month, I don't know. reactogenicity. As you know, Dr. Paul, that's just you know, increased risk of adverse reactions. Exactly. Right. And so how did that a CIP meeting about coadministration? How did that translate in the real world? Well, here's the Washington State Department of Health, frequently asked questions, can I get the COVID-19 vaccine when I get a routine vaccination? And it says, yes, the ACI voted that you can do that. You don't need to schedule a separate appointment for your child. That's it. No warning, no lack of safety studies, no reactogenicity language, you know, that's all you get. So parents, I hope you were able to see this very quick overview, that if all you're paying attention to is the public health messaging of safe and effective, you have not been doing your medical due diligence, it's not your fault, because they didn't want you to do your medical due diligence. But how do you do it? Well, I'm going to show you two places you need to go get familiar with, you need to get familiar with that mouthful, the Virbac the vaccines and related biological Products Advisory Committee, and I'm sure Dr. Pol will put that link on his website, and, and also the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, you need to know their website, go check it out, go look at their calendar, you can go look at reporting recordings of past meetings, and and begin to explore and the upcoming meetings, they continue to have more meetings about everything going on with these COVID shots when you watch those. And then you go on a deep dive and you especially when you go explore, like some of the information that's coming up in public records request and Freedom of Information Act requests to get more data from these clinical trials, you will really begin to get a clearer picture of the non risks of these of these shots so you can make a more fully informed decision on behalf of your children.
Dr. Paul 54:02
Wow, thank you for that. I think that video you played it just like it stabs me right in the heart to see this room full of completely conflicted, financially conflicted people signing off on perhaps the most dangerous recommendation that's ever been made to take that hepatitis B with that horrible adjuvant that Merck has the the aluminum adjuvant that's in that vaccine and move it from teenagers to newborns. It's done more damage, I'm sure probably then anything well up until Gardasil HPV vaccine, and then now the COVID disaster that just like trumps everything, it's unbelievable. Now this coadministration decision with no data is just going to be alarming to everyone. But this is what they've done. This is the history of the ACI P It's the history of the whole immunization program, minimize the fact that there are problems with their program that there are problems with their vaccines. Don't let people get the data start the program without any data effectively making our children the guinea pigs, the animal studies, if you will. And now with COVID The whole world is the is the experiment, folks, it's time to wake up. Thank you so much, Brenda, any closing remarks?
Bernadette Pajer 55:18
Just you know, get busy. Do your homework, it's worth it. It may take you hours of research and you know, your child's life is worth it. Your life is worth it. The future of humanity is worth it. Pay attention get active.
Dr. Paul 55:31
Yep, absolutely. the precautionary principle is that unless you're sure that what you're about to do is safe. You wait, wait for more data. Be cautious. That's that's a common sense thing. And parents, it is completely on us. We have got to do that work for our children. They're helpless without our protection. Thanks for watching. Thanks, Bernadette. Thank you.
Dr. Pol, here, doctors and science.com is where you go to get access to my exclusive members only section. This is how you the viewers support our work. We have no sponsors. We are fully supported by you, our viewers, what do you get in the Members section, it's quite a list, you get access to a couple of my eBooks. The first one is the authoritative reference list for my vaccine friendly plan book. I also have written a book very extensive called everyday health that covers pretty much what I think you should be doing if you want to live a healthy life in this world today. But there's so much more. We have a live q&a Every week after the show with yours truly, Dr. Pol answering your questions, submit your questions online, and I will tackle as many of them as I possibly can. And try to answer to the best of my ability, whatever burning questions you have. In addition to this, you get transcripts of every show. We have other bonus content. And I think one of the huge bonus content pieces is the PowerPoints of the talks I'm giving as I travel around the country. People are always asking me how can we get those PowerPoints? This is how you do it. Head on over to doctors in science comm and become a member and join the team of against the wind helped me spread the truth and share this on social media and with their friends at doctors in science.com. I look forward to running with you against the wind. Go to our website doctors and science.com 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
Comments are closed.