Dr. Paul 0:04
Dr. Paul Welcome to against the wind doctors in science under fire. Today's episode features an interview I did with Scylla Westcott. She is a Classical Homeopathy PhD trained and has every credential possible basically on homeopathy. She's the producer of the real immunity documentary. And we discuss homeo prophylaxis, and our relationship to microbes. This is a very important topic. I then interviewed Jeremy Hammond. He's the author of the book he wrote about me the war on informed consent. He's also an independent journalist who covers everything controversial that has to do with our government, and freedom. He's covering the FDA, the CDC, misinformation and public health and official disinformation, flipping the script on what's really going on here with the information wars that are out there. And he really discusses COVID vaccines, and what's the truth behind the data? Enjoy the show?
Dr. Paul, coming to you from the heart, I wanted to discuss today, powerlessness, letting go and learning. Here's the thing, so many of us I know myself, I desire I long for what I call freedom, freedom from addiction, freedom from ego, man, have I been in the ego and my past? And freedom from the need to be right? It just comes from a different level of consciousness. Here's the thing. And you've heard this, certainly, if you've been involved with any sort of spiritual traditions, religious growth, we have to suffer to get well, we have to surrender to win. We have to die to live. And we've got to give it away to keep it just doesn't make sense. And yet it does when you experience it, opening to love to joy to laughter. It's really about unlearning and letting go. I've lived that this past two, three years. I think as a society, we are being called to live that. Let go and let love
welcome silhouette caught what a pleasure it is to have you on against the wind doctors in science under fire.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 2:30
Thank you, Paul. It's great to be here.
Dr. Paul 2:31
Okay, you and I met, I believe it was when you were putting on a conference here in Oregon that I attended. And that was my proper introduction to homeopathy. You are probably one of the world. experts in this field. You are a classical homeopath. You even have a PhD in homeopathy. I didn't even know such a thing existed. obscure? Yes, you're an instructor at Normandale Community College for the past eight years, you're the author of there is a choice, and co authored the solution homeo prophylaxis, you're the producer and director of the real immunity documentary. You've published numerous articles, you're the executive director of real immunity, and people can find you at real immunity.org. This is an organization I know you're active training medical license providers on how to do homeo prophylaxis, which I know we're going to talk about, I know you've lectured around the world, and you've organised numerous international conferences. So what a privilege it is to have you on the show.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 3:42
Thanks, Paul. It's great to be here. And yeah, I interviewed you for the real immunity series. So you are featured in the very first episode, which is available on my site free of charge that first 20 minutes of the first episode, and the rest of its available on gaia.com.
Dr. Paul 4:01
So wonderful. Yeah, I think where we intersect is you've been doing this a lot longer than I have as far as focusing on true wellness, health, building it from the beginning, as opposed to the pharmaceutical model that I was trained in. So I had to sort of wake up to the fact that there was a different way and I would say a better way clearly. Let's introduce our audience. I mean, some people just have a knee jerk reaction to homeopathy if you're trained, you know, as I was MD kind of training is just most of my peers just reject it outright. They have no understanding of what's going on. It's sort of been given such a bad name going way back to you can probably give the history but homeopathy in Europe I know is a first if first line of health for many people before they would ever dream of going to traditional classic MD, for example, but give us a little introduction to what homeopathy is. And then we'll get into homeo prophylaxis, which I'm very interested in hearing more about.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 5:15
Sure. So homeopathy has been maligned for a number of years ever since the Flexner. Report in the early 1900s, most of the hospitals taught homeopathy, they were homeopathic hospitals, basically. So it was very well utilized and a lot of natural methods were utilized. But the Flexner Report came in and really shifted the face of homeopathy, the AMA was formed, they literally disallowed any homeopaths or association with homeopaths. So married couples that were practicing homeopathy and any other kind of medicine, there was a rift, there was a, it was a very difficult time. And the purpose was to promote pharmaceuticals, because the pharmaceutical boards came in, they sat on all the medical school boards, and dictated treatments. So treatment really got shifted to pharmaceutical application at that point, and
Dr. Paul 6:16
and the pharma pharmaceutical industry benefit, I would say, from not only massive money and influence that was brought on by industry, Rockefeller, etc. But I mean, they had some real positive things to bring to the world. I mean, you think about antibiotics, I mean, they have a place at times certain infections just would kill you if you didn't have access to antibiotics. So they were able to ride on the coattails of those sorts of successes and then just sort of
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 6:49
write and the ease of treating many people with one drug, because homeopathy is very individualized. And you have to take a case you you know, five people could have the same diagnosis and get five different remedies. So it's arduous
Dr. Paul 7:06
is really the art of medicine.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 7:08
Yeah, it's more it's more of an art and it's over 200 years ago, Hahnemann in Germany, Dr. Hahnemann, he was a linguist. He was a chemist, he was a physician. And he was translating medical texts from different languages. And he looked at like treating like, so basically, Hippocrates himself would see a child fall down with seizures, grab a plant called Hyo, cyanus, or henbane. Give that plant which causes seizures, and it would either cure the child or kill the child because it was too strong and Hahnemann decided, let's dilute it. And let's make it you know, not strong, but still have the frequency, the energy, the information in that plant. So he began experimenting on himself mostly. And then he began observing like cases of mercury poisoning, arsenic poisoning, and seeing that if he took those very toxic substances and diluted them, and gave them in very small amounts, they could cure people from those conditions. So you know, it was it was really the most modern medicine of the day and is still utilized in many countries, and endorsed like in India, they trained doctors, and they work for the government. So it's very well utilized in Cuba, in South America, in India, and respected. So homeo prophylaxis is a subset of homeopathy. And by that I mean that Hahnemann was treating children in Germany for scarlet fever. And what he found in one home he was treating them with Bella Donna and he found in the the homeopathic remedy Bella Donna. And he found in one home one child was receiving Bella Donna for a chronic condition and she never contracted scarlet fever, even though other members of the family did. And he started to reason that it could prevent as well as treat a disease. So he started utilizing it as a preventative and it ultimately became a requirement in the pression government to give Bella Donna during the outbreaks during the epidemic, so it was used as a prophylactic during the epidemics.
Dr. Paul 9:38
Interesting and that was at very low homeopathic doses Right?
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 9:43
Correct. Because it has you know it can be it's poisonous at high doses you don't
Dr. Paul 9:49
have I remember in medical school our literature was all putting down homeopathy because the dangers of Bella Donna and they were quoting use of Bella Donna and not at home. Yeah Pathak doses. Right? So that confusion and not being aware of how important that whole dosing is, I think for our viewers who aren't familiar with homeopathy, is it safe to say that the delusions are to such an extent that we're dealing with sometimes energy not even molecules, and therefore the safety of it is absolute, I mean that you just cannot poison yourself homeopathically
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 10:29
the safety is absolute. And the way it's diluted in homeopathic pharmacy. So this is overseen, this is regulated. And it's diluted, you take a source solution, and you add one part of that to 99 parts of a solution, and you subclass it or shake it. And you have a one C solution, CS Roman numeral for 100. So it's 100 drops or parts in there. You take one part of that, put it into 99 parts of the solution, and you have A to C solution. You continue to do that serially. When you have when you get to 12. C, there are no molecules apparent in that dilution. So anything over 12 C has none of the original substance in it. It's completely safe. And one of the founders of the FDA was a homeopath. So there are homeopathic remedies on the Pharmacopoeia the FDA, homeopathic Pharmacopoeia.
Dr. Paul 11:36
Interesting, I had not realized that the FDA had been involved with homeopathy, you would think they were part of the problem of making sure nobody had access to it.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 11:45
As many years ago, you know, most of the doctors study practice homeopathy. So yeah,
Dr. Paul 11:53
so in my world, I'm a pediatrician. Most people know that. And the big thing that I stumbled on, as you know, the story, was the fact that vaccinated kids seem to be not doing as well as unvaccinated kids. And I ultimately published that study in November of 2019. Or sorry, 2020. There. So vaccines are not homeopathy, you have real high high doses of adjuvants, for example, aluminum that we know has no biological benefit in the body. And so it's a toxic substance put in to irritate the tissue, so you get an adequate immune response. And while some vaccines, the live virus vaccines, for example, I mean, we know they're fairly effective. We've wiped out the natural chickenpox. We've got other problems because of that, from the varicella vaccine. And same with measles and rubella. Those vaccines being live virus attenuated, were fairly effective, but they come with a lot of collateral damage, as we now are becoming aware of their because of the amazing safety of homeopathy. I wonder if you might speak to this issue of homeo prophylaxis and maybe just explain what that is? And how, in a way, it's a safe, completely safe alternative to mainstream vaccines?
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 13:21
Sure, so homeo prophylaxis is the use of these highly diluted substances made from animal mineral vegetable sources or from Knossos? No, so it's our x due date from diseases so saliva or spew or pass or you know, some kind of something from someone with the disease would be called a no sewed. So that's what we use there diluted and Succasunna. There's no molecules, it's basically information that we're transmitting. And that is given prior to exposure to a disease. And in doing so, the person becomes familiarized with their energy system, their vital force because homeopathy is vitalistic, right? We work with the whole person and the vitality. The vital force recognizes the the frequency of that particular virus or bacteria. So if met in public, an appropriate immune response can be raised. So what this does is we're not fighting the disease anymore. We're associating the disease in a way that you become so familiar, that the danger is eliminated from the disease so that that's the short explanation. It's been used for 200 years very successfully, and I'm happy to share different studies or events that occur Using homeo prophylaxis as well,
Dr. Paul 15:02
those studies by any chance available at your website.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 15:06
They are if you go to real immunity.org o RG, go to the products and click on the knowledge vault, it's free, but you have to make an account to get in there. And in the knowledge Hall, there's a chapter for homeo prophylaxis and the studies are there. Yeah, meningitis, Japanese encephalitis, dengue fever, leptospirosis, a number of tropical diseases and children's infectious contagious diseases as well, a 15 year study out of Australia by Dr. Golden.
Dr. Paul 15:42
Wow, when we have things like novel viruses or rare infections that are for whatever reason, becoming more prevalent, or even epidemic. So we've all gone through COVID 19. This past couple years, it just occurred to me has anybody made a homeo prophylaxis product for COVID?
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 16:09
Absolutely. So Cuba is one of the forerunners in making different products and utilizing them with their population. So I consulted with Dr. Isaac Goldman who's in Australia, but he goes to Cuba and consults with them all the time. And we came up with a combination, Cuba, tweaked it and use it in drops. And they said it was for multiple viruses, they, you know, they were focusing on that C named virus, but it did cover multiple viruses. Mine was a little bit different. I used it for a year, and I took about 500 people did a casual survey, just saying, Did you get sick? Did you take it? Did you get sick? If so how long? Were you sick? What were your symptoms? And what I found is that, I believe it was four people got sick out of my 500. And their symptoms lasted less than six days. So they did very well. And and basically little less than 1%. Yeah, yeah, it's, it works. I've been doing it for 1520 years, and I watch, you know, during flu season, my people that take a form of influenza on them that I provide compared to those who are getting flu shots. The difference is graphic. You know, it's it's very distinct. So,
Dr. Paul 17:43
so, you know, way back to was it Hippocrates? Who said, Let food be thy medicine. You know, homeopathy is almost like, even better than that. I mean, you're, you're you're tapping into vital energy, which is something I don't completely understand. But I believe it. I mean, folks, if if you don't understand that everything is energy, then just start at least opening your possibilities to the fact that when things aren't going so well, as we've seen happen this past couple years, it's time to start really opening our minds to perhaps there's a another way or even a better way,
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 18:25
right? Choice. Yeah. I'd said it's not philosophy, it's physics. Everything's energy, everything and we're beginning to see that and, you know, MRIs, X rays, these things are based on energy. And if you took someone from 200 years ago and said, We're going to stand you against the screen and see your bones, they would have thought you were crazy.
Dr. Paul 18:48
Yeah. So it seems like perhaps this is a real tools for not only the current epidemic, as it will be called, but future possible epidemics.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 19:02
Absolutely. And there's a very distinct reasons why homeo prophylaxis HP is so valuable in epidemics one, it's, it can be created very rapidly, it doesn't take a lot of hoops to jump through to make it to it doesn't require cold chain so you can distribute it all over the world very quickly and easily without having to be refrigerated. Three, it's because it's not an injection. It's taken by mouth. Non medical professionals can administer it during natural disasters. We had homeopaths without borders, go to foreign countries and teach people how to administer it so you know, easily administrable it it's not gender specific or age specific or even species specific. So You can put it in the the water trough of animals you can give to children adults, same same dose, which is great. And it also addresses all mutations. So unlike vaccines that have to be remade, redistributed, HP is looking at the symptom picture. So even if there's a mutation, and we know all microbes mutate, right, I mean, that's inevitable. So it adapts to those mutations. So I'm using the same HP for diseases like pertussis or measles or meningitis, that's been used for 100 years. Because the original what's the word I'm looking for? The original source of all microbes is 1000s of years old, they just keep mutating. And as they interact with human beings, they lend to our evolution. Right. So we, we've seen that there are certain is it viruses that are necessary for the placenta to form? I remember reading this. You know, we our evolution is based on microbes, right? Our bodies are 90% microbes. 80% microbes.
Dr. Paul 21:26
Yeah, most people don't appreciate that. We're more microbes than we are human.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 21:30
Right. So you know, conducting a war against them? Is that really what we want to do? It makes no sense. None whatsoever. It's an infantile approach. We'll destroy ourselves and destroy our planet. We need to work with them. Yeah, and that's what he does.
Dr. Paul 21:47
Wow. So I'm reading about, I'm sure you've seen this too. The next new big fear microbe, monkey pox. This supposedly is a relative of smallpox. What is the HP response to this? If there is one,
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 22:09
we certainly have one. And it would be because it's in the same species as smallpox, it would be the same as smallpox. But, you know, people have contacted me, and I'm very reluctant to generate the fear. You know, I'm not selling a widget. That's not my goal. My goal is to educate and support people who are broadening their thinking, who are looking for where we need to go as a population. So I don't want to promote Oh, I have something for monkey pox, because I don't think it's a threat. What would be your recommendations
Dr. Paul 22:45
for the typical listener who, regardless of where they are on the spectrum of fear, let's just say they want to be proactive, they want to be prepared. What? What do you want people to know?
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 23:04
So they're, you know, on the real immunity site, there's a lot of information. And I have a formulation for seasonal flu that covers the current virus that's going around as well, that people have been happy with. With children. There's a program with eight diseases. And the interesting thing, Paul, is that, you know, your study is monumental, where you show that the unvaccinated had more robust immunity. So when Isaac Goldin did his study with about 3000 children. In Australia, it was over 15 years, and he anticipated that the unvaccinated children would have more robust immunity than the HPV children. So we had these two groups and the vaccinated children. And the HP children actually had more robust immunity than the unvaccinated children. And his conjecture was that they were getting all these diseases. So the frequency of these diseases were passing through their systems, without any risk without any symptoms, you know, and that's what Mother Nature intended for us to associate with these different microbes. And these kids were getting these microbes. And so that program is available on my site. And what I like to do it's about it's really teaching and supporting. So it comes with a kit that comes with a video teaching people the dosing schedule comes with a parent booklet where they keep records. Also an appointment with me to individualize the program and to answer any questions and most importantly, support for at least three years, the duration of the program. So my main goal is to educate and support pair writes, I want to share that I was conventional, I vaccinated my children, I have four, they're adopted from China, Russia, Taiwan, I have one biological that I gave birth to. But, you know, when my daughter from China went into aseptic, meningitis immediately after receiving her shots, that was my moment to research. And that was 25 years ago, I started researching, and I learned, it's a side effect of one of them. So, you know, it was my personal experience that brought me to this place and hearing other parents, and what they have endured and seen as you have in your practice. So I like to offer parents a free consult as well. 15 minutes. If they go to the site there. I have two other practitioners. So depending on who they sign up under, you know, they can meet with one of us for 15 minutes to chat, get to know us ask questions. We're happy to do that. And yeah, parents have been super happy with having an option.
Dr. Paul 26:07
Wow, fantastic. Well, you're providing a really important service folks go to real immunity.org. So thank you so much for being on against the wind. And God bless you.
Cilla Whatcott HD RHom, CCH, PhD 26:18
Thank you for having me, Paul.
Dr. Paul 26:25
Welcome, Jeremy Hammond back to against the wind doctors and science under fire. It is such an honor and privilege to have you on the show.
Jeremy R. Hammond 26:32
It's my honor to be speaking with you again.
Dr. Paul 26:35
Thank you. You are one of those rare, really rare these days independent journalists. We got to know each other quite well, when you called me up. And I was under my challenge with the medical board in Oregon. And he wanted to interview me and out of that came an entire book, The War on informed consent, the persecution of Dr. Paul Thomas, there it is, by the Oregon Medical Board, which was a masterpiece. My goodness, it has been the most important resource for my attorneys. Thank you for all that hard work. I know you've written lots of other books. The obstacle to peace is another important one. But I mean, you're just one of those guys that if there's something going on that the world needs to know about. I mean, you're all about exposing dangerous state propaganda.
Jeremy R. Hammond 27:27
Yeah, that's how I advertise my work is, I suppose dangerous state propaganda serving to manufacture concern for criminal and government policies. Borrowing the phrase Manufacturing Consent from Noam Chomsky and Edward Herrmann, who wrote the book, Manufacturing Consent the politically economy for the mass media, they in turn, were borrowing it from Walter Lippmann and, and others. But that really is, you know, the overarching goal of everything that I do, by happenstance, I guess, wasn't what I set out to start doing. It just that's the nature of the work that I do is is, you know, for example, I started out just speaking out against the Iraq War and exposing the lies that government was telling the people about weapons of mass destruction and all that, over the years, you just evolved into a focus on vaccines since the birth of my son and now that's really all I have time for it. There's so much deception and lies surrounding the vaccine program, that I really, there's it's just such a huge, huge problem that really needs addressing. And so when I actually did a deep dive into the literature, for my own purposes, for our person, to be able to make our own personal choices. With the birth of our son, I was expecting to find a disparity. But you know, what I found the gap is just so incredibly huge between what they say the science says, and what we actually know from scientific studies in the literature. And so it just once I had acquired that knowledge, I just made a decision. Like I can't keep this knowledge to myself, I have to start writing about this, and eventually shifted my focus entirely from like foreign policy and economics to public health.
Dr. Paul 29:09
So let's dive into that a little bit. You've done a analysis of the of the FDA is fraudulent risk benefit analysis that they used to approve Pfizer's COVID 19 vaccine for emergency use in infants and toddlers. This just happened this past month, where I mean, they just rammed it through every step of the way. What did your research find?
Jeremy R. Hammond 29:33
They made the decision to authorize the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use in children under five down to infants as young as six months on the basis of no data showing efficacy against symptomatic infection. Instead, they relied on it what they call an immuno bridging analysis, which is where they they measure antibodies in younger children who have received To the back of the first two doses of the vaccine, the original protocol of the trial was for two doses with a vaccine that didn't get them to the level of antibodies that they want they wanted to achieve. So they added a third dose, and then comparing the level of antibodies in the younger children with antibodies induced in older children, for whom, you know, the vaccine had already been authorized. And so this was the basis of their fraud, because the FDA knows that just because, you know, there's a certain level of antibodies in the blood does not mean that you have immunity. So antibodies do not equal immunity. And yet, for the purposes of this authorization, they treated an antibody titer at reaching a certain level as equivalent of proof of immunity, which is scientifically fraudulent, and the FDA knows it. In fact, the FDA has warned the public against using positive antibody tests as a basis to judge whether you have immunity or not. Which is disingenuous when it comes to natural immunity, because with natural immunity, evidence of prior infection is evidence of immunity. Because we know from the scientific literature that almost everyone who recovers from infection comes away with strong natural immunity.
Dr. Paul 31:24
And the immune system is so much more than just antibodies. And so this is sort of a little dirty secret of the vaccine industry is they just focus on the ability to have the body make antibodies, and therefore they've done their job. And they never look at all health outcomes or even whether that specific infection is reduced by their vaccine.
Jeremy R. Hammond 31:50
Right. And in fact, for the day, they separated the younger children into two age groups, actually, they did six months to 23 months, and then two to four years. And among the two to four year olds, there was actually a higher rate of severe adverse events and a higher rate of reinfections. Among the vaccinated group. So this is like this is the data that the FDA used to push to ram through this authorization Yemenis miserably poor data and just again, just the whole document is just riddled with scientific fraud, like outright fraud, you know, making claims that are false citing studies saying that they say one things, and they don't say that, as example, claiming that one study showed a 16 fold increased relative risk of myocarditis for COVID 19 patients, as opposed to patients who didn't have COVID-19. In fact, this, the source that they cited for that, you know, I go and check the sources, this is what I do, it was actually in the odds ratio was an eight fold increase, not, not 16 fold. So they doubled the relative risk that was reported. And then they they deliberately withheld the absolute risk reported by that paper, which was point 1%. And, in fact, the authors of that paper emphasize that, you know, even though there's this increased relative risk, that seems sizable, when you put that in into perspective of the actual risk of this outcome is still very low. And policymakers need a emphasize the authors of this paper emphasize that the policymakers need to stress that and report the absolute risk as well as the relative risk. And yet, what did the FDA do, they withheld the absolute risk, and they didn't report that in the paper, or in the in the document. So there's examples like this, where they, you know, they they're cherry picking information. Another example is they cited over 7%, they started a survey in the UK as indicating that, you know, seven over 7% of children who become who have tests positive for SARS, cov, to have symptoms of long COVID. So persistent symptoms. In fact, the authors of that paper, likewise, you know, pointed out that their study was not methodologically robust to be able to draw any conclusion conclusions from that finding. And they specifically said that, you can't use this as a basis to estimate the, the the prevalence of long COVID among children. It specifically warned against inferring that this was the rate of that this was actual prevalence of long COVID Because they couldn't, it was just a survey of self reported symptoms and other studies, so they setting to seven over 7%, you know, which is pretty frightening. Well, you know, seven out of 100 kids develop long COVID. But, you know, looking at studies that have actually estimated the prevalence, it appears to be much, much lower. In fact, at this point, is quite low, especially oops, So Omicron and interestingly, you know, what was happened is a lot of the earlier studies didn't have control groups, a lot of the ones reporting very high prevalence of long COVID didn't have control groups. And so the studies that actually use control groups or have have found like almost no significant differences in symptoms between people who who who have evidence of prior infection and people who don't. And in fact, one study even showed that just the belief of having been infected with COVID, even if they there was no evidence that the individual actually had an infection, just the belief that they had COVID-19 was associated with increased reporting of long term symptoms. And another systematic review, found that studies that the higher the quality of the study, the lower the estimated prevalence of long COVID. And specifically looking when I just looked at the studies with with that actually had control groups, I think the only the only symptom that they found that there was a significant difference with was, was loss of smell and taste.
Dr. Paul 36:10
Yeah, that's the one new thing from COVID infections, at least the early strains. I have a control group, my practice, I'm not allowed to do research because of my board stipulations for keeping my license. But I can anecdotally say that out of over probably about 6000 active patients during the entire COVID era. I don't think I have a single patient with long COVID Yeah. So yeah, it's it's greatly over reported or however, I don't know what they're doing. You had listed,
Jeremy R. Hammond 36:47
it is confirmed, I forgot to mention because it's confounded by so many other factors, including the detrimental health effects of the lockdowns and all the fear mongering, right. And so this is something that studies that actually control for that. Those Those detrimental effects. And the authors of these studies have pointed that out, like, you know, like, there's so much like trauma on the population from the government's responses to COVID-19. That that is it, that is a detrimental effect on people's health that you have to control for.
Dr. Paul 37:14
Yeah. So you know, the FDA Food and Drug Administration is this captured agency, that's just my subjective feeling. But I think there's a lot of evidence for the fact that they, they really work for Pharma. And you you talk about five horrifying facts about the FDA vaccine approval process. What are those?
Jeremy R. Hammond 37:36
Oh, gosh, it's been a while since I've reviewed my own my own document there. But, you know, for one year, I wrote that before the COVID 19 pandemic. You know, we had a time when, you know, I used to have this kind of perception at the FDA, like did its own like studies that there was like an independent review of pharmaceutical products. And that that's not true, the FDA doesn't do its own study. So that's one thing is that they rely on the pharmaceutical industry's own studies, which of course, they can kind of submit the data that they like, and to just withhold the data that they don't like, and so that's kind of this bias in the in the vaccine approval process. So, you know, that's another thing is that, you know, a lot of times they don't use placebos, you know, in clinical trials, they use active comparators. So, for example, that is an injection of aluminum, rather than a saline placebo. And then so that conceals the true background rate of adverse events. So that enables them to report that you know, the rate of adverse events between the vaccine group and the suppose it placebo control, you know, the placebo group that then is not actually a placebo, are similar. And so they can say, Oh, look, it's safe. So there's lots of, you know, really foul play at work in this another aspect and nothing I wrote about in that in that paper that I have that you know, you can sign up for my newsletter and get that for free. Download, it is not so much related to the approval process. But just to the, you know, the process of getting these vaccines to market is the fact that the vaccine manufacturers have it legal immunity against vaccine injury lawsuits since the 1986. law was enacted, granting them broad legal immunity is so if the vaccine is recommended by the CDC, for use in children, they get almost blanket liability protection the only two conditions under which they could be sued would be fraud. So for example, making claims in their their product inserts, which are they have to legally disclose, you know, the risks of the vaccine the known risks you And those documents, so if the if they couldn't, you know, if they were to just come out and make claims in there that were false, or they didn't disclose things that they knew, you know that they could be sued for that, or if they make some kind of manufacturing error, and they put the wrong ingredient in or something like that. So it's very narrow, limited liability there. But But generally, they're just have protection against immunity. And this is relevant for today. Because, you know, one of the reasons that the they have been pushing so hard, in my opinion, for getting these vaccines into the arms of children is that if they can add the COVID-19 vaccines to the routine childhood schedule, then they will have the the manufacturers will have legal immunity.
Dr. Paul 40:46
Yeah, they won't need that emergency use authorization forever. Right. Right. Yeah. So another interesting aspect I think you've looked into is the fact that the CDC has been claiming that natural immunity to SARS cov. Two is inferior to that induced by COVID-19 vaccines. But I mean, a lot of us who are looking into this know that the opposite to
Jeremy R. Hammond 41:16
be true. Yeah, when the vaccines were first authorized and December 2020, the CDC came out saying that scientists don't know the duration of natural immunity. But indications were that it was short lived. That was false. At the time, studies had already shown that infection induces immune immunologic memory, with evidence indicating that it induced production of what are called long term bone marrow plasma cells, which are an immunological marker of long term immunity and no one marker. And then that finding was later later in May 2021. That was confirmed that yes, natural infection does induce this long term immunologic memory, which we can anticipate will probably lasts throughout most people's lifetimes. That doesn't mean they won't lose certain level of antibodies. Antibodies do wane over time. However, as we've already discussed, antibodies do not equal immunity. And there's a lot more going on with the immune system than just antibodies. And in fact, with SARS, cov. Two, it appears that cellular immunity plays a more important role, particularly particularly in protecting against severe disease. And in fact, again, going back to the point of the FDA scientific fraud, where they're they're using this immuno bridging analysis where they're measuring antibodies in children's blood. Actually, there's been a consistent finding, since the start of the pandemic, that a high level of antibodies is associated with severe COVID 19. So severe disease and death, whereas people who have mild symptoms or no disease at all, with infection, tended to generate a lower level of antibody. So this idea that a higher you have to get have a high level of antibodies to have protection is actually falsified. And we know that that's not true.
Dr. Paul 43:13
Yeah. It makes sense. I mean, children have a much more robust, innate immune system that stellar cellular immunity are speaking to, which is why children are almost universally unaffected by SARS. cov to I mean, they just do well, was it 99.997% survival rate? I mean, it's just like, it's no big deal. There is no emergency. Right? So you have to there's
Jeremy R. Hammond 43:41
no emergency they authorize it for quote, unquote, emergency use in children. What's the emergency?
Dr. Paul 43:48
Yeah, there is no emergency. And yet they got it through and got it approved. Thankfully, very few parents are taking their young kids in, I think people are starting to wake up.
Jeremy R. Hammond 43:58
Yeah, you know, that's half glass full, optimistic point of view that, you know, with the FDA having done this is just such transplant. That's the thing about it, you know, it's not when I say that they their authorization was based on scientific fraud. It's not even hidden. I mean, any journalist worth the title, could read that document and see just transparently, that what the science and what the FDA was doing was completely unscientific. You know, and I only just touched on the fraud, I mean, good getting deeper into their, you know, bridging the Allen analysis, for example, they didn't even measure antibodies against the circulating variants. Any of the, against Omicron, or any of its sub variants, they measure the antibodies against the original Wuhan strain of the virus, which is now extinct outside of laboratories, even though they know I mean, of course, this FDA knows everyone there knows that these vaccines which were designed to endure Use an immune response to the spike protein of the original Wuhan strain do not induce the same level of neutralizing antibodies against Omicron. There, it's far the neutralizing titers are far lower against Omicron. And studies have confirmed that something called original antigenic sin is a real serious problem with COVID-19 vaccines whereby the training of the immune system to generate that immune response to that extinct spike protein, the spike protein of that extinct variant, really results in this fixation of the immune system, so that it fails to adapt. So if you know once you're vaccinated, and then you're infected with Omicron, the antibodies, you know, there is a very transient protection from that. But it's not because the antibodies that are generated are specific to Omicron. They're still specific to the original Wuhan strain, they just happen to be able to still cross react with a spike protein of Omicron. Because there are similarities, still, of course, you know, despite the many mutations that have occurred in a spike protein of Omicron. So it's just a cross reactive immune response. Whereas with natural immunity, they've shown that the immune response is adaptive, and able to generate antibodies at any time become more specific to Omicron. And so natural immunity really must be understood as an opportunity cost of vaccination. And that is a factor that as ever, public health officials, and policymakers just failed to take that into consideration. They absolutely failed to consider natural immunity as an opportunity cost of vaccination. And that's a huge logical fallacy underlying all of their decision making. For the entire vaccine program. We're not just talking COVID-19 vaccines here.
Dr. Paul 46:54
Now, it's so true natural immunity provides a much more broad and robust level of protection, both cellular and antibody, and it's recognizing entire sequences are much larger sequences when you speak of COVID as opposed to the narrow little sequence that was provided for the vaccine. Right, which
Jeremy R. Hammond 47:15
ties back into that when we're talking about about the CDC lying about natural immunity. You know, I mentioned back in when the vaccines were first authorized how the CDC put out this deceptive statement, failing to disclose to people that actually studies had shown that natural immunity was likely to be quite long lasting. And then come August of 2012 2021. They the CDC actually started explicitly claiming that the vaccines induce superior protection than natural immunity, which of course, you know, I wrote about at the time as being demonstrably false. I mean, study after study after study has shown just the opposite. But the CDC came out with that claim. Some months later. I think it was January this year. CDC Reacher's researchers published a study in the in the CDC is journal mm WR and not acknowledging that you are falsifying that the CDC is claiming August, which of course was at a time during Delta predominance. And their own data showed that actually natural immunity was considerably more protective than being fully vaccinated against Delta, including against hospitalization. So you know, the CDC is own data falsified its earlier claim that that natural immunity was inferior. We know this to be false.
Dr. Paul 48:35
Sure, hard to take the CDC seriously anymore.
Jeremy R. Hammond 48:38
Yeah, unfortunately, again, they people are waking up, I mean, the, the brazenness with which they are lying to people. Like the brazenness with which the FDA is willing to conduct scientific fraud to push through an authorization. It's just so transparent now, like even the most ardent, hardcore Public Policy Advocates, you know, like Paul Offit, like distancing himself from the FDA decision. He was one of two dissenting members of the FDA advisory committee who didn't vote, for example, to to add an Omicron component to booster shots for a fall booster campaign. The reason being because there was no data indicating that that would be beneficial. Paul Offit, he's written he wrote an article, I think it was in JAMA JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association, talking about original antics, hmm, you know, acknowledging rendered original antigenic sin as a potential problem with these vaccines. And in talking about how, you know, they've already done research in development trying to develop a vaccine for Omicron. And why don't we have one yet? Well, because when they tried to do it, they ran into this problem of original antigenic sin with the boosters. Yeah, they increase antibody titers a bit but their antibodies to the original Luhan strain still. So they're not specific to Omicron because of original antigenic sin and so this is this has been the major obstacle in development of a variant specific vaccine. Paul Offit is aware of this and so for him to kind of like publicly distanced himself from the FDA is decision making is is really kind of a remarkable turn of events, I think because of course, you know, everyone in the health freedom movement most of us are familiar with Paul Offit is you know, just like a such a staunch hardcore pro vaccine policy advocate,
Dr. Paul 50:32
just for frenzy, because I have brought this topic up in previous shows ivermectin. So why, or what's going on with the official information being disseminated about ivermectin just from the beginning, it seems like they did everything possible to make sure nobody got their hands on this amazing product? Well, this
Jeremy R. Hammond 50:55
again, ties into the FDA approval and authorization process, because to receive emergency use authorization. For these vaccines to get the EUA status from the FDA, there has to be according to FDA regulations, there has to be no other approved treatments for COVID 19. And so I think that's, I mean, that, to me, is the most obvious explanation for why the government was engaged in such a campaign of disinformation related to ivermectin, which of course, the media, the mainstream media, as usual, played right along with, you know, doing public policy advocacy, rather than, you know, journalism. In an example, I hadn't written much about ivermectin just because I've been so focused on on the vaccines and fighting the lockdowns and things like that. But But I did write one article not too long ago, just to debunk mainstream media misinformation about a study that had come out. And all the headlines were claiming study shows that ivermectin doesn't work. But that's not what the study showed at all. In fact, that ivermectin treated group in that study, fared quite better. It's just that they didn't have a large sample population that there wasn't a lot of people in a study. And so it did the results didn't reach statistical significance. Well, that's you can interpret statistically insignificant finding, as showing that ivermectin didn't work because they did fare better. And had there been more people in the study it very well may have achieved statistical significance, we don't know they would have to redo the study with a larger group, to be able to tell, but to take that finding and report that all this study shows that ivermectin doesn't work was completely dishonest. So I wrote an article correcting the record. Incidentally, LinkedIn cited that article of mine as one of the reasons to suspend my LinkedIn account for supposedly spreading quote unquote, disinformation misinformation.
Dr. Paul 52:56
So it feels like our public vaccine policy is more faith based, not evidence based. You have an example I think, that you've talked about or written about, I think it was Deborah Briggs.
Jeremy R. Hammond 53:09
There's a number Yeah. Deborah Birx is one who she was she was put the question was put to her by a congressman, have you referring to the earlier claims, I mean, if you think back to vaccines were sold to the public public on the grounds that that was the path out of the pandemic, that they were going to induce herd immunity. And they would induce two doses would induce durable sterilizing immunity that was going to prevent infection and transmission, and thereby we'd have herd immunity, and the pandemic would end. That's how the vaccines were sold to the public. That was the claim that was being made by public health officials, including burps. And so the question was put to her, you know, were officials lying, or were they guessing, which is kind of a question is, is wrong? Because if they had been guessing that still lying, because if you make a guess about something, and you communicate that guess as though that that's scientifically, you know, factual information that's still lying. But anyhow, aside from the problem with the question her her answer was instructive, because she didn't even attempt to deny the fact that the government officials had misinformed the public. She acknowledged it. And she said that the explanation for that was was hope. They were hoping that the vaccines would do what they were claiming the vaccines would do.
Dr. Paul 54:35
So Jeremy, as we get close to wrapping up here, what is going on with your peers? I get asked the same thing in my field, right. I'm a pediatrician, I'm a doctor and how come my peers cannot see the facts that are clearly laid out in front of us. You're in journalism, what's going on with journalists today?
Jeremy R. Hammond 54:57
I attribute the blindness that willful blindness to another term, I borrow from Noam Chomsky, the state religion, in the vaccine, religion as a sub sect, of the state religion, you know, and I, you know, I wrote about this before I ever got into the topic of vaccines when I was dealing with foreign policy issues. And I would just describe the state religion whereby, you know, journalists succumb to their own confirmation biases, there's just kind of, you know, this, this belief among Americans, regardless of profession, that, you know, America is the greatest country and the government, you know, sometimes makes mistakes, but only ever has benevolent intentions. And, you know, this, like disbelief in American exceptionalism. You know, so there's this kind of confirmation bias, I think that people have just just the same as in the medical profession, where we discussed this in my book, where you were one of you know, the rare individual who was willing to question your own practices, and ask yourself is what I'm doing instead of helping these children is it might might actually be causing harm, and, you know, taking an honest, retrospective, you know, introspective look at your own practices, and in, you know, doing your own research, and really do starting to do a deep dive into the literature for yourself to kind of be able to answer that question, you know, most doctors aren't like you. And I'm just so thankful to you, that we have you. And, you know, I just really am grateful to you for that. But that's it's similar with journalists, you know, they have this this this unwillingness to question their own beliefs, and to challenge your own beliefs. And so there's a certain level of cognitive dissonance as well as confirmation bias. And so I think that's, that's my primary explanation for what we see in terms of the lack of actual journalism in the mainstream media. Yeah.
Dr. Paul 56:51
So your thoughts for moving forward? And we live in this dualistic right versus wrong, black and white? You know, it's, everything's polarizing. And I feel like we're not really moving to the solution. If we stay in that dualistic framework, how do we move more towards unity and inclusiveness and get beyond this position that we're in right now?
Jeremy R. Hammond 57:18
Well, honestly, to begin with, again, you kind of segwaying from we were just discussing just a willingness to question your own beliefs, to to really, not only just question your beliefs, but actively, you know, educate yourself in being accepting of other people's perspectives, being willing to consider other people's perspectives. And, and really be being willing to challenge your own beliefs is that can be a very difficult thing to do. But I think we all as individuals need to be willing to do that,
Dr. Paul 57:50
folks, if you want to have access to this amazing work that Jeremy is doing, just go to Jeremy hammond.com, Jeremy
Jeremy R. Hammond 57:59
r hammond.com. Yeah, well, there's
Dr. Paul 58:00
an R in there. Yeah, my middle initials in there. Of course, if you want to learn more about what I've been going through with the Oregon Medical Board, his book, The War on informed consent is just a masterpiece. If you order it from your website, Jeremy R hammond.com, then you actually are supporting his work in a greater way. But it's available wherever books are sold. And you can also donate, the work you're doing is not paid, right? I mean, you had to walk away from lucrative paying jobs in journalism, where you would be limited on what you can report on to become truly independent. And that's what makes you so valuable.
Jeremy R. Hammond 58:38
Yeah, I don't receive wage salary grants. You know, commission for the work, I do occasionally do freelance projects. But that's quite rare. Most of the most of everything I publish, nobody pays me for, apart from the fact that it's funded by my community of readers. So it is really vital for me to be able to, to get, you know, reader support. So yeah, if you go to Jeremy r hammond.com. And please sign up for my newsletter, to be able to stay up to date with my work, especially this big paper I've got coming out quite soon. I just think I wrapped up my conclusion today, I do need to do a couple of rounds of editing. But I hope to publish that in the very near future. So you definitely want to be posted once that one sets out.
Dr. Paul 59:23
Absolutely, folks, it's it's upon all of us to support those who are independent, just like factors in science.com Is your link to this show where you we are completely member supported. And we appreciate all of you who support independent work, and those of us who are really trying to do our best to sift through the misinformation and get you to the truth. The truth is after all singular it is not this or that it is just what it is and the truth does when in the end. Thank you Jeremy for being a truth seeker and such an important and powerful voice in our health free And world.
Jeremy R. Hammond 1:00:01
Thank you appreciate this conversation
Dr. Paul 1:00:09
Dr. Paul, thanks for watching the show. Please visit doctors and science.com. There you can access our members only section. This show is member supported. We don't have to take sponsors. We don't have to have anybody controlling the content of our show. This is a huge perk most people aren't aware of your membership gives you access to my eBooks, transcripts of every show, PowerPoints from talks I'm giving around the country and live bonus peeks at behind the scenes work. We're doing my off the cuff thoughts and reviews on current events. Your support makes all this possible. Thank you. Help me spread the truth and share this on social media and with your 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. And let's make this the weekly show the nation has 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.