Continued from Part I
Open Discussion, the Four Pillars of Pandemic Response, Pillar 1: Limit the spread
Senator Johnson (about 1:44) starts with a question that has been on his mind: when I got Covid in September 2020 I had no symptoms. I was doing preemptive testing because of having contact with the public and one test turned up positive. Why were so many people who tested positive asymptomatic?
Dr. McCullough: there's a wide spectrum of symptomatology based on individual determinants, like age, comorbidities, etc. Leading research also suggests that not everyone can even get Covid 19.
Dr. Urso: it begs the question of whether asymptomatic transmission can occur. That has never been the driver of a pandemic or an epidemic, but it has been used during this pandemic to create fear. Conclusion from about seven studies is that it's responsible for less than 1% of cases.
Dr. Paul Alexander was introduced (about 1:48): I am a clinical epidemiologist with a background in evidence-based medicine. I worked with the WHO and as the Covid advisor for the Trump administration.
I want to touch base on two things quickly. First, to support Dr. Marik - that day they released the NIH study on Remdesivir, that morning there was a high level paper published in the Lancet by Wang et al. on Remdesivir. They found there was about 60% adverse events in both groups, and they stopped that trial early for harms. So when the NIH released their study in the early afternoon, it was on the heels of a devastating study on Remdesivir. I wanted to put that on the record.
.
Regarding asymptomatic transmission: we've looked at the body of evidence asymptomatic transmission is exceptionally rare if it exists, about 0.5%. Very similar to the issue of recurrent infections, it's exceptionally rare. It's often an issue with a suboptimal interpretation of PCR results, we would like to see a 90-day period between Test 1 and Test 2, we want to see at least two tests - positive PCR or antigen test or genome sequencing. So there are a lot of problems.
What Dr. Urso said was absolutely correct, the asymptomatic transmission claim was used as a tool in this pandemic to drive fear and to get the population to lockdown. And you had 15-year-old Johnny hiding at home, thinking he was at the same risk as 85-year-old Granny with three underlying medical conditions.
Senator Johnson asked Dr. Alexander about research on natural immunity (about 1:51). What has baffled me, I think in May 2020 the FDA or CDC recommended against testing for antibodies. I'm just a layman but when you go into get a flu vaccine, the first thing they ask you is, "are you sick today?" We didn't do this with the Covid vaccines. So can you quickly talk about the benefit of natural immunity and also why it probably would have been a good idea, especially in light of mandates, to at least test someone for antibodies and recognize natural immunity.
.
(about 1:52) Dr. Alexander: I've done a lot of work with Dr. Risch, Dr. McCullough and Dr. Cole on natural immunity. We looked at all of the available research, the comparative studies as well as high level papers. We put together about 150 pieces of evidence and we found conclusively that natural immunity far superior to vaccine immunity.
.
I think there was this misperception from around the Fall of 2020 to the beginning of 2021, when the vaccines were reaching the completion phase and beginning to be rolled out, there were some small studies being put out that concluded people were losing their immunity because their blood antibodies were waning.
.
But the public health officials at CDC and NIH knew better than that. They knew that they were misleading the public, that your serum antibodies can wane but we have another compartment, our cellular immunity, T-cell immunity, that was robust, potent, lifelong, durable. We had study from 2008 or 2009, there were persons still alive, about 95 years old, that had been infected with Spanish flu. Their bodies still produced a cellular response, T-cell immunity to it.
.
With the vaccine rollout, he has advocated for limiting vaccination to high risk groups, people 70 and above, but across the board no one else. I want to put that on record. I am not in support of these vaccines, I support vaccines that are properly developed with the proper duration of follow-up with the proper safety testing. Children should never get these vaccines.
.
What we should have done before anyone was given a vaccine, in conjunction with proper informed consent - which I believe hasn't happened to date, informed consent has been abysmal - we should have done serological testing for antibodies or the T-DTEC test for cellular immunity, etc.
.
And that has been a catastrophic failure because we have been vaccinating people who have already recovered from Covid and we have good studies (names some) that shows if you layer vaccinal immunity antibodies on top of Covid recovered antibodies, you are at increased risk of ending up in the hospital.
Senator Johnson (about 1:55:35): Why was there this assumption on the part of our federal health agencies that natural immunity wasn't worthwhile?
Dr. Malone: to address your original question [about testing positive for Covid but having no symptoms] - the preexisting conditions of the individual is crucial but so is the dose of the virus. We know any vaccine can be overwhelmed by a sufficiently large dose of pathogen. We all have differences in our preexisting conditions, and we all have genetically different immune systems; that's a good thing, it means a pathogen can't take us all out. You may have received a very small dose of the infection, you mounted an immune response and generated a more indolent, slowly developing progression of infection and your body handled it naturally, which is why you hardly noticed it.
.
Dr. Kheriarty (about 1:58:28, back to natural immunity question): CDC and other public health agencies have given two reasons for ignoring natural immunity with their vaccine policy. One, if we acknowledge natural immunity is a reality (which it is, this is immunology 101), people might go out and get Covid rather than getting the vaccine - which ignores all the folks who have already recovered from Covid.
.
Two, it was going to decrease the efficiency of a needle in every arm if we have to ask people if they've had Covid, have them bring medical records, or run a lab test to verify. The third reason that went unspoken but that I think is undeniable, acknowledging natural immunity would lead to the basic question, how many people have it? And the fact that 2 years into the pandemic we still do not know how many people have had Covid is a failure of public health to do basic epidemiological research.
.
The two most basic facts that every medical student learns first about every new illness are incidence and prevalence - how many new cases, and how many total cases over a given period of time. So let's run population-based, randomly sampled T-cell testing or ongoing antibody testing to find out each month how many Americans and in what regions have had Covid. Sounds obvious. But if we do that, we would probably find that prior to Omicron it was over 50%; after Omicron most people are estimating 70% or more. The public health establishment was afraid of those numbers because they would see it, rightly or wrongly, as an admission of policy failure. Why? Because of the lockdowns, the masks, the mass vaccination campaign, all of this was supposed to stop the spread of the virus.
As part of my lawsuit we filed a FOIA request to the CDC asking they show one case of someone getting reinfected. I think it's rare, probably more common now with Omicron but the cases are milder, etc. One important fact about natural immunity, there hasn't been a single reported case where someone got reinfected and transmitted the virus to someone else. We know it happens with the vaccine because it doesn't provide sterilizing immunity. So the FOIA request, CDC could not provide any data showing where this occurred and this was included in the lawsuit. People with natural immunity are the safest people to be around. You're not going to get Covid from someone who has already had Covid.
Senator Johnson (about 2:04): prior to Covid there were about 3 coronaviruses that would infect humans and cause a common cold, known as rhinoviruses. Is Omicron like one of these cold viruses?
Dr. Cole: Omicron is like the uncle in your family tree that doesn't look like anyone else and maybe the milkman came along at some point. Omicron doesn't branch off the other variants. It has enough mutations - the backbone looks more like a pre-Wuhan virus from a genetic point of view. It behaves like a common cold, it doesn't bind in the lungs as previous variants did, doesn't cause the degree of clotting that the earlier variants did, we've been blessed with almost a natural vaccine.
.
If you're Covid recovered you tend to get less disease with Omicron symptomologically but with people who got the vaccine they're negatively effective, meaning they're getting Omicron at an advanced higher rate. The reason is basic immunology - there's a special kind of antibodies in your tears, your nose, your mouth called secretory IGA, it's little mops in your tears. If you've had a natural infection you have high levels of IGA, these little mops in your mucosal membranes, and it mops up the virus quickly.
.
You don't get this response with the vaccine. We're seeing that the vaccinated carry a high volume of virus because they don't have the secretory IGA. So the claim by our public health officials that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is a pathophysiological lie. The vaccine does not neutralize in the part of the body where the virus comes in. This is why mandates are moot and need to go away like most of the world has done already. Omicron is not SARS-Cov2 Covid 19, this is Covid 22-meh.
Dr. Malone (about 2:09): just returned from Europe, had chance to work with Geert Vanden Bossche. Data is showing that the vaccinated are more prone to being infected, and that the increased risk is a function of the number of doses one has received. It's a blessing that it's milder, etc. but it has a warning sign, what Geert has been warning about and the FDA has acknowledged. In the original documents for the EUA they told the pharma industry that they desired they would investigate the risks of ADE or vaccine enhanced disease.
.
What Geert has been warning about is that if we continue to implement this universal vaccination policy rather than the position of the Great Barrington Declaration, we risk driving the virus through basic evolution to a state where it may be more pathogenic and more able to elude immune response. Omicron is not only resistant to the vaccine but its infectivity seems to be facilitated by the vaccine.
.
Geert has also corresponded with one of the world's leading vaccinologists, he asked that I not name them, who has headed major vaccine companies, highly respected, innovative individual who completely concurs that this is what we're doing.
.
Dr. Wiseman: two important studies on natural immunity, show either 88% or 77% protection from natural immunity and the studies were done by Pfizer and Merck - Pfizer study for the vaccine, Merck study for Molnupiravir, they looked at people who were already seroprevalent at the time of the study.
.
Dr. Marik (about 2:16:15): Most important factor in determining progression of the disease is the viral load in your nose and pharynx. That's where the ACE2 receptors are, it's where the virus replicates. It kind of makes sense if you know where the virus is, KILL IT where it is. And we have oropharyngeal and nasal sprays that will kill the virus within 5 seconds. Why aren't we doing this? It's a simple, cost-effective way to control the virus.
.
Dr Risch (about 2:18:00): responding to what Dr. Malone said about the potential emergence of a new and more pathogenic strain. Omicron has essentially pushed out all of Delta, according to CDC we're now seeing maybe 1000 cases of Delta a day compared to 1 million a day of Omicron. Omicron appears to convey immunity to previous strains so it's extremely unlikely that a variant would come out of any previous strain of Covid. If one were to come out of Omicron, it's unlikely to be more pathogenic because of the 50 mutations it already has, it would have to reverse mutate back into a more pathogenic variant, which seems relatively unlikely. Omicron already has dozens and dozens of its own variants now (2:18:52) and will probably continue to see these but it's likely to remain a cold-like virus
.
Dr. Cole: Because of that pheron furin cleavage site which we see in the laboratory setting in creating modifications of viruses for enhancement in function, that pheron furin cleavage isn't really being split and causing the S1 and S2 to split off in Omicron. Again, it's more of a cold, that's why we're not seeing all the effects. We're seeing the behavior giving back immunity, the mandates are not necessary because we have a new virus that really doesn't have the genetic potential to go bad.
Senator Johnson (about 2:20:30): has a question that he doesn't want to spend a lot of time on so asks that one person answer: the efficacy of masks.
Paul Alexander: first, to reiterate something Dr. Malone said about Geert Vanden Bossche, a key point is that had we been using a vaccine that could sterilize the virus, stop transmission, we would not be in this situation, whether or not the vaccine is needed. You can never get to 100% herd immunity with these vaccines. Also, we have some brand new data from the UK and Scotland this week which demonstrates conclusively that the vaccine is driving massive infections in the vaccinated.
.
Masks: he and Steve Kirsch pulled together 150 studies published in Brownstone; looked at all comparative studies, there's just 2 randomized controlled trials - 1 is a Danish mask study, showed masks ineffective in terms of curbing infection. 1 study out of Bangladesh, from 0 effect to 13%, very modest reduction in risk.
.
I speak as an evidence-based medical specialist, the entire body of evidence shows conclusively that the blue surgical masks we've been using and the white man-made masks are largely and highly ineffective. They do not stop transmission and every single place in US we looked at where they imposed a mask mandate, the actual infections increased.
.
A Swedish study by Ludwickson looked at 1.9 million children across the entire pandemic from 0 to 16 years old in primary and secondary school; 0 deaths of children while there were no lockdowns, no school closures and no masks.
.
Dr. Urso (about 2:28:15): masks have been looked at for 3 decades or so, roughly 12 RCTs; there are 0 RCTs that show masks stop the spread of upper respiratory disease, including N95. With N95, the N stands for non-oil resistant, 95 stands for 95% of airborne particles of which all viruses fit through. The capsule on these viruses are an oil capsule, it's like peeing in a pool, it goes right through, it does not stick to the water molecules.
Pillar 2: Early treatment
Senator Johnson (about 2:29:15): a question from someone watching the livestream on Rumble: Sam says that both his adult children got Covid but they couldn't get treatment from doctors in Virginia and they did not have mild cases.
Senator Johnson: I get this question all the time from constituents who got the test or got Covid and the NIH has no recommendations. You've got FLCCC, and Dr. McCullough's protocol. But it's very difficult to find doctors who will treat, so what are patients to do? And if you find a doctor who will treat, it's difficult to find a pharmacy that will fill some of these drugs.
.
Dr. Marik: NIH tells you to go home, take fluids, take Tylenol and stay home till you get blue and can't breathe and then you go to the hospital and then they isolate you like a prisoner, give you Remdesivir and Dexamethasone and then you die.
.
Covid is a treatable disease but timing is critical because of this viral load. You treat early, you don't wait for the test when patients have symptoms of Covid, you treat them like they have Covid.
.
Senator Johnson points out he understands this but people can't find doctors like you.
Someone in audience comes up (about 2:32), Ben Marble MD, founder of myfreedoctor.com. We've delivered over 150k free doctor's visits to America [via telemedicine], delivered early treatment, the McCullough protocol, we've only lost 4 patients. We have a team of volunteer doctors who donate their time. When asked about his treatment protocol - McCullough's protocol, so IVM, HCQ, monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, budesanide, several other low-cost prescription drugs. Also vitamin C and D, zinc, quercitin.
.
Senator Johnson: mentions a study in England showing budesamide was 80% effective. And we still don't recommend that.
.
Dr. Kory: repurposed generic drugs don't provide profit to the system. CDC sent out a memo in August 2021, sent out a similar memo back in Spring 2020, telling the nation's physicians and pharmacists not to use generic medicines. We have pharmacists across the land who are refusing to fill these prescriptions because they've been brainwashed into thinking the FDA hasn't approved their use, as if that matters; off label prescriptions has been going on for decades.
.
The volume of patients that myfreedoctor has served is miraculous. There are other tele-health practices, we have a "find a provider" button on our website. We've tried to collect as many tele-health providers that treat all states, we've done that as a public service. It's a crime against humanity, we have patients who get ill with a treatable disease and they can't get treatment.
.
Senator Johnson - something Dr. Kory published on the [FLCCC] website, a forest plot showing all the different drugs there's been some research on and Dr. Kory circled the drugs that are recommended by our health agencies. They all range from $700 to $3200. All the ones not recommended are a couple of bucks.
.
Steve Kirsch: points to comparison of drugs on his site (C19early.com) and says that if you can't get treatment from a doctor there are still many effective OTC drugs on this list that you can use. Wants to mention George Fareed and Brian Tyson who treated 7k (someone said it's now 10k) patients with 0 deaths, tried to reach out to the NIH repeatedly beginning in March 2020 with their protocol and they were ignored. It's available on the web and they have a book out now. Also, fluvoxamine, hard to get a doctor to prescribe it for Covid but you can get it for depression.
.
Dr. Mangat: getting the drugs often means independent pharmacists, stay away from CVS, Costco isn't bad.
Senator Johnson (about 2:42): have any of your patients had an adverse reaction to IVM, HCQ, etc.
Dr. Cole: No. I've treated 400 patients, not a one has gone to the hospital or died, 1/2 were elderly, with comorbidities, high risk. Only adverse reaction is I've lost 1/3 of my business because insurance contracts have pulled away from me for "unprofessional conduct" for using these "dangerous drugs"; I've treated 500k patients diagnostically with no complaints but have 4 complaints against licenses in 4 different states for saving lives.
.
Dr. McCullough: I have lost patients to Covid but to a one it's because we got a late start on early treatment. I recently published a paper with Fazio and colleagues in Italy, we've shown the golden window for treating Covid 19 is the first 72 hours. When early treatment fails it's because it wasn't started early enough. I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of reports of hospitalized patients and those who died of Covid, and the determinant of hospitalization and death is lack of early treatment.
.
Steve Kirsch: as head of Covid 19 Early Treatment Fund we see treatments from all kinds of different doctors and it doesn't matter which protocol you use, if you get treatment in that 72-hour window, nobody dies.
.
Dr. Urso: clinicaltrials.gov shows there are now 96 clinical trials underway for use of HCQ in cancer. Many drugs, like azithromycin, have wonderful effects on so many levels,
on inflammation, on viruses; I've been using it for 20 years for scarring. So what we're prescribing are very low risk drugs. And you can compare these to the ones being developed by Pfizer and Merck. These are old drugs from the 1950s that have been dressed up, they're repurposed drugs with a higher price tag; Molnupiravir will kill the virus, because viruses use the same machinery we do, but will also kill your mitochondria, your normal cells, they're actually not too bad at killing cancer cells, anything that's replicating quickly.
Senator Johnson (about 2:48): discusses a Drug Adverse Event Comparison chart comparing various drugs -
Adverse Events / Deaths / Deaths per year
1/9/1996 to 9/30/2021:
IVM: 3,756 / 393 / 15
HCQ: 23,355 / 1,770 / 69
Flu vaccines: 197,816 / 2,001 / 77
Dexamethasone: 83,599 / 15,910 / 618
Tylenol: 112,244 / 26,356 / 1,024
.
Since 2020:
Remdesivir: 6,504 / 1,612 / 921
.
In 12 months:
Covid vaccines: 1,053,830 / 22,193 / 20,175
.
Senator Johnson asks Dr. Wiseman about video he put together on Molnupiravr for advisory committee meeting; they barely recommended it, 13-10 vote.
Dr. Wiseman: I would encourage everyone to watch the meeting, it's the ANBAC committee at the FDA that deals with anti-microbial drugs. That's the closest to any real discussion of efficacy and safety of any of the agents we've been talking about, and it hasn't been repeated. It wasn't done with Paxlovid or the vaccines.
.
There are lots of concerns about Molnupiravir: its stated method of action is to induce mutagenesis, to make a storm of mutations; concern was that we would spawn dangerous mutations. So there was discussion about all the safeguards that would be taken, hardly any of which were mentioned in the FDA's approval letter (held up a copy). There's more things mentioned in the Paxlovid letter about mutations, etc. and it didn't have the same ANBAC review.
.
The main point is that this is absolute hypocrisy, how they're waving through Molnupiravir and Paxlovid compared to how they've dealt with IVM and HCQ and fluvoxamine. Dr. Kory and I re-analyzed the key study that shut down HCQ, we showed it was completely wrong, it had missing data - we found the data, 42% reduction. The similar group that had an early treatment version of that study, we know the data is there but
they won't supply it to us. Those are the studies that closed down HCQ, and the FDA and the New England Journal of Medicine and Annals of Internal Medicine need to insist on getting those data. This shows the corruption and co-option of the peer-reviewed literature and FDA.
Senator Johnson asked Dr. McCullough to talk about what we didn't do in the approval process, the independent safety review panels, etc. Talk about what we didn't do in the
approval process, what we didn't do and should have and what we should do moving forward.
Dr. McCullough: my comments are about the Covid 19 vaccines, so Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. I've served on or chaired over 2 dozen data safety monitoring
committees for NIH-sponsored and big pharma-sponsored clinical trials. I know data safety backwards and forward. I've also been on critical events committees and institutional review boards.
.
Those three bodies are essential. A critical event committee to adjudicate a safety event. A data safety monitoring board to independently look at what is going on with a clinical program and when an investigational product is being administered. A human ethics board to protect the subjects in the study. We have an Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) in the US, charged with protecting human subjects. Our Covid
vaccine, the consent forms in every state indicate that the vaccines are investigational or in research because they're under an EUA.
.
(about 2:56:19) What did not happen with the vaccines is we did not have those 3 essential bodies installed - by the way, they were installed and utilized in the RCTs before they came to EUA approval.
.
We also had the wrong bodies leading the vaccine program, the FDA is supposed to be the drug safety watchdog, the NIH is the government research body and the CDC is the outbreak investigation body. Right now the CDC and FDA are the named sponsors of a vaccine program, this should never happen. We should have had a separate body, a government body, be the sponsor of the program, the vaccine manufacturers can supply the products, and then we needed the separate data safety monitoring board, critical event committee and human ethics there in oversight. If this would have happened, based on the emergence of unexplained deaths, I am testifying today that
the program would have been shut down in February because of excess mortality.
.
Dr. Kheriarty (about 2:57:35): the NIAID division of the NIH co-owns the patent of the Moderna vaccine and 4 members (said 6 at first but corrected this) of the NIAID get
royalties from the profits, into their personal pockets, not to mention the entire budget of that program. Senator Johnson asked if he was sure of this and Dr. Kheriarty said yes, that it's publicly available information.
Senator Johnson: I know that some of the people on the panel for Remdesivir had ties with Gilead.
.
Dr. Kheriarty: rife with conflicts of interest that would never be accepted in other settings. He explains how these agencies are situated in the government - NIH, which has gotten involved in sponsoring the studies for approval of the vaccines; FDA, the agency that gives approval; and CDC, agency that makes recommendations on which subsequent mandates are based. So the CDC says "we don't mandate anything, we don't make federal policy," which is true, but all the mandates look to the CDC recommendations as their justification so no one ultimately takes responsibility for the
mandates.
.
All of these are divisions of the same Department of Heath & Human Services and all report to the same Secretary. There is a need for strict separation from those who are profiting from these products, the need for careful structures to be put in place such that regulatory agencies are serving the interests of the American people.
Senator Johnson: then there's also the revolving door between the agencies and pharma.
Dr. Kheriarty: you can trace their careers as they rotate through these agencies to pharma and back.
Senator Johnson: What about the health agencies in general dictating how doctors practice medicine, and how foreign that really should be to how the structure was set up. And why is that? I realize that $140 billion worth of grant money flowing through Dr. Fauci over decades.
.
Dr. Kheriarty: I received a letter from the California State Medical Board about 6 months ago, it went out to all physicians; saying that any doctor in California who writes
an inappropriate exemption for masks or other Covid-related measures will have his medical license subjected to investigation and disciplinary action.
.
For a physician, this is worse than a threat of being fired. If I get fired I can find another job or start a private practice; if I lose my medical license I can't practice medicine. The letter doesn't define what constitutes an "appropriate" or "inappropriate" exemption for a mask mandate. So I have no idea whether if I write an exemption for a child with a
severe anxiety disorder that's worsened by wearing a mask, is that going to subject my medical license to disciplinary action?
.
Physicians in California interpreted the phrase "and other Covid-related measures" to include vaccines, which had been rolled out by then. It has become de facto impossible to get a medical exemption for a Covid vaccine in California, no physician will write them even when someone has a contraindication that's on CDC's list of contraindications for the vaccine.
.
I have a patient who went to her rheumatologist, specialist in her autoimmune condition; the specialist told her he didn't think she should get the vaccine, given her age, her low
risk of getting Covid and he thought there was a good chance based on the data we have that it could worsen her underlying medical condition. But he wouldn't write her the exemption she needed for a vaccine mandate at work, he said he was afraid of losing his medical license.
.
So medical boards are behaving very irresponsibly, doing the bidding of governors who want to impose certain mandates, in this case mask or vaccine mandates. They're not serving the public good, they're certainly not serving the interests of patients. In 18 years of being a licensed physician, I and my colleagues have never received a communication like this before from the medical board.
.
Dr. Cole (about 3:03:27): They never define, they threaten you and it's this looming threat without definition. You're "spreading misinformation". When you ask them to cite
the papers, they will not define it, they will attack and threaten you and put you in a state of fear.
Senator Johnson introduces Brianne Dressen, (about 3:04:37) who's become a spokesperson for people who have suffered injuries.
Brianne: I participated in the clinical trials for AstraZeneca here in the US last November, had extreme reaction that's changed my life. I feel like I'm being electrocuted 24/7, I can eat about 6 things and my body feels like it's made of glass. I was hospitalized, I was paralyzed from the waist down and incontinent. Because of this and because I cried in the ER when my legs weren't working, I was diagnosed with anxiety. I was sent home with intensive physical and occupational therapy "due to anxiety due to the Covid vaccine." I was later able to go to the NIH and receive an appropriate diagnosis after 7 months, neuropathy, POTS [Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome], things that are not anxiety.
.
Kyle Warner: I'm a professional athlete, a mountain back racer, injured by 2nd shot of Pfizer vaccine - heart inflammation, POTS and a little bit of mass cell activation syndrome so I have limited things I can eat without a big inflammation cascade. I asked my PCP for an exemption 4 times (lives in Boise ID) and she's not able to write me one. I'm worried about traveling for my job in the future, I'm not going to get the booster, I'm worried I'll have an issue. Asked the panel whether there is a standardized exemption form? If I show up at the Canadian border with a note from my doctor, will that be acceptable?
.
Dr. Kheriarty: talks about what happened to "the world's #1 tennis player" in Australia; had a medical exemption accepted by the tennis association but the authorities there
arbitrarily and to make an example out of this high profile athlete denied the exemption. Unfortunately, there is not a uniform standard to acknowledge that some people should
not get a particular intervention, there is no medication that is good for everyone all the time in all circumstances.
.
Dr. McCullough (about 3:07:32): and there is no product that is safe for everyone at all times. There were large numbers of individuals excluded from clinical trials based on
appropriate concerns of safety, including pregnant women, women with child-bearing potential who could not guarantee contraception, Covid-recovered or suspected Covid-recovered and those with positive serologies. Because the FDA and Pfizer, Moderna (and outside the US) AstraZeneca knew these products would either not be safe or not be efficacious. And the institutional review boards and the FDA who reviewed these
protocols also agreed. In order to exclude a group from the clinical trials the justification must be very strong. It is regulatory practice and principle always that groups that are
excluded from randomized registrational trials are always excluded and contraindicated for administration of the product in clinical practice, especially during the early adoption.
The that fact the FDA and the CDC abrogated those regulatory principles and actively encourage and through many mechanisms had others coerce individuals for whom the
vaccine is unsafe is malfeasance. It's wrong-doing by those in positions of regulatory authority.
.
Dr. Kheriarty: and there is no stronger or clearer contraindication than having already been harmed by it, so being forced to take it in order to live, travel, work is criminal.
.
Kyle Warner: is it logical to think that if you've been harmed by the first dose, you shouldn't get a second dose, and if you get the second dose and are harmed, will the booster give you more harm?
Dr. Kheriarty: Of course, you don't have to be a physician to know the answer to that question.
.
Dr. Urso: want to be sure it's understood - all these people who had Covid were excluded from the trial, all of them. So we're going to take our 5-11 year olds, there's 28
million of them and probably half to 60% have had Covid by now. So what's going to happen to these kids who have already had the virus, who already have immunity and
we're going to subject them to something that wasn't even tested in that group? We're not here about civil liberties and mandates, we're here to save lives. And this group of people should be excluded absolutely, natural immunity denial should not be happening. You're going to harm I don't know how many children by force-vaccinating them.
.
Dr. Kory (about 3:11:32): I know I sound like a broken record but I'm listening to my colleagues call out all the inanities, the insanities, the absurdities, these departures of our policies from what we know to be scientific truths, the denial of natural immunity. We have to understand why. There could be multiple reasons. The simplest and most understandable and provable is that every vaccine, these novel, patented, high-cost drugs is profits. These policies are without scientific support, yet they're being carried out and distributed across the country and doctors and states and health departments are willingly accepting them without question, without critical thinking. This is corruption, plain and simple.
.
Dr. Parks: I want to echo Dr. Kory's statement and say it didn't just start, many people have been fighting this corruption for many years. When they did the 1986 act removing manufacturer liabilities for vaccines on the childhood schedule, the childhood schedule exploded. I'm not saying that every vaccine on the schedule is or isn't safe, but it provided the perfect business model - every kid has to take these vaccines if we put it on the schedule and we have no liability.
Continued in Part III
there doesn't seem to be anything here