Don’t Vaccinate Kids: Urgent Message from Doctors’ Summit

Speakers at the Summit included Doctors: Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Paul Alexander, Tara Gesling, Pierre Kory, Ryan Cole and more.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Mary Beth Pfeiffer / TrialSiteNews (November 8, 2021)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Leading experts on flawed U.S. COVID policy issued an urgent warning at a summit Saturday: Young children will be harmed in an ill-advised rush to vaccinate a population with very little chance of severe infection from the virus.

“The real risk for healthy kids is about zero — it does appear to be lower than the flu,” said Dr. Robert Maloneinventor of the mRNA technology on which the vaccine is based. Inoculating 28 million children 5 to 11 years old, Malone told attendees of the Florida Summit on Covid, could lead to “a thousand or more excess deaths.”

“That’s a thousand kids,” he told the audience of 800 doctors, nurses and advocates. “It’s a thousand kids too many.”

In addition to other pressing COVID issues, the summit addressed three central questions about childhood vaccination. Do young children need vaccination against COVID? Are the vaccinations safe? Are unvaccinated children a threat to adults? On each, they found the government’s near-universal vaccination policy wanton and unsupported.

“Children don’t get severely ill. Children don’t die from this infection,” said Paul Alexander, a clinical epidemiologist and former senior advisor on pandemic policy in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “We’ve been fed a lot of misleading information.”

Though harshly criticized for keeping schools open, “Sweden had not a single death of a child from COVID,” said Dr. Richard Urso, a Texas ophthalmologist citing published data.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control counts 576 U.S. children under 18 who succumbed to COVID from Jan. 1, 2020 to Nov. 3, 2021, among 60,811 who died in that period. But the CDC figures offer no perspective on whether another illness or COVID caused the deaths. In a study of 48,000 COVID-infected children under 18, no deaths were reported among those without comorbidities like leukemia or obesity. In other words, healthy kids did not die, suggesting vaccines are not needed for them.

‘Willful blindness’

With the risk of serious illness low, panelists said the potential toll of vaccinating was unacceptably high, pointing to thousands of officially downplayed but real side effects and deaths. The risks to children include – but aren’t limited to – serious inflammation of the heart called myocarditis, which has been reported at three to six times the expected rate in vaccinated adolescents. A CDC study reported 14 vaccine-related deaths and 849 serious reactions in children 12 to 17 years old.

“There will be children lost with the vax — far more than ever happened with COVID,” said Dr. Peter McCullough, a widely published cardiologist and leading voice on a rational pandemic response. Doctors are guilty of “willful blindness” to vaccine hazards, he said, having “bought into this…dream that this vax if both safe and effective. It is shattering their dreams that it is not sufficiently safe.”

The summit met just after the Pfizer vaccine was recommended by the CDC and as rollout began in pharmacies and clinics.

In Florida, where debate on vaccine mandates is vigorous, summit organizers see child vaccination as a line not to be crossed in a state that could set an example for the nation. They hope to stop the expanded vaccine program with an executive order by Gov. Ron DeSantis or legislation in an upcoming emergency session called to address vaccine mandates.

“We need to pull out all the stops,” Dr. John Littell, an Ocala physician who spearheaded the summit, told me. “We’ve only begun to fight for our children.”

With virtually universal media support, pressure is intense to vaccinate the pint-sized.  On Twitter, the Muppet character Big Bird told of doing his duty for the public good. “I got the COVID-19 vaccine today!” he tweeted on the day of the summit. “My wing is feeling a little sore, but it’ll give my body an extra protective boost that keeps me and others healthy.”

Pfizer video, meantime, widely shared on social media, showed “superhero” boys and girls, in capes, masks and wings, celebrating vaccination. Mouthing words written by a pharmaceutical giant, they praised other kids who took the needle for their “courage,” willingness to “try new things” and “helping the whole entire world.” Another video, of 13-year-old Madeline De Garay injured after vaccination during a trial, tells quite a different story but, sponsors say, was rejected for airing as a television ad.

‘One and done’

The six-hour summit included a premier lineup of COVID doctors who, based on treatment experience and available science, also raised two other urgent concerns:

The effective suppression of physician freedom to treat early COVID with ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, fluvoxamine and other drugs that could keep patients out of hospitals and save lives.

The protective value of having had COVID, which offers immune benefits that panelists said exceed – and forego the need for — vaccination.

“Natural immunity is robust; it’s complete; it’s durable,” Dr. McCullough told the group. “If it was possible to get it again, it would’ve happened hundreds of millions of times. It’s one and done.” Just 100 or so cases have been reported in the literature, he said, but there is confusion over whether they were actually second infections.

“With COVID, you develop immunity to 50 or so proteins” that spur production of antibodies, Malone said in his talk. “With the vaccine, you develop immunity to one structural protein,” namely the spike protein. “It’s a huge difference.”

“Don’t let them tell you that recovered-from-COVID does not lead to long-lasting immunity,” Dr. Ryan Cole, an Idaho pathologist, told the group, pitting a report on 106 science articles in favor of infection-acquired immunity against a single CDC “pretend paper” saying vaccines offer more protection.

The implications of natural immunity are enormous. The CDC estimates that 120 million Americans – a third of the population — have had COVID. If their immunity was recognized, that would dramatically reduce the lucrative market for vaccines and boosters – what many panelists believe motivates the rush to jab. More than 200 million Americans will have been infected after the Delta wave, McCullough estimates, broadening that population greatly.

Physicians at the summit left room for some to be vaccinated, including people whose compromised health puts them at risk for severe illness. Malone supports vaccination for high-risk groups, though he told me, “That may change as additional data become available.”

As it stands, however, the vast majority of Americans would be vaccinated under government recommendations that, if mandated by workplaces, schools and municipal governments, leave few exceptions.

‘Unmitigated corruption’

While the urgency of vaccinations took center stage, the failure to treat people at the first sign of COVID – and its immense consequences — was cited as the product of a corrupt, Pharma-controlled system and government.

In a stirring talk, Pierre Kory, president of Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance and a voice for early treatment, pointed to a litany of methods that science journals, media and government have used to effectively deny care with inexpensive “repurposed” drugs like ivermectin.

Among them: Refusal to publish pro-treatment scientific papers and retraction, under pressure, of others. Insistence on pricey randomized control trials while not funding them. A double standard that has Merck’s expensive molnupiravir poised to become a prime outpatient drug, based on one pharma-sponsored trial, while tossing aside dozens of studies favoring ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and other potential treatments. Rejection of the clinical experience of hundreds of doctors who have seen early treatment drugs keep people out of hospitals and coffins.

Having had “a front-row seat on the war on ivermectin,” Kory described in two words the reason for the monumental failure to treat COVID: “Regulatory capture.” In short, the alphabet agencies – NIH, CDC, FDA – aren’t making the decisions.

“It’s well described that all of those agencies are literally run by Pharma,” he said. “If you want to keep your job, you let the leaders do what they do.” This has led, he said, to unmitigated and repeated acts of corruption, which are hurting public health.”

‘Get sicker’

While Kory has strongly supported ivermectin – and several doctors in the audience said they had great success with it – he and others said there are other perhaps two dozen compounds that could help early. Nonetheless, public health leaders are silent on recommending any. Among them: aspirin, budesonide, colchicine, curcumin, melatonin, nitazoxanide, quercetin, zinc and vitamins C and D. Even a highly favorable trial on fluvoxamine has failed to earn the government’s endorsement.

“They tell you to go home and get sicker and come back and see us when you’re really sick and your body’s damaged,” Malone said. “Ask yourself, ‘does this make sense?’”

At the same time, speakers dismissed the unsupported contention that unvaccinated children are a threat to adults — who even when vaccinated can themselves get and spread COVID. “Children are not superspreaders,” said Urso. Further, said Malone, “It’s not the kids responsibility to protect the elders.”

It is, however, the responsibility of public health agencies to live up to protecting the public. Instead, said Dr. Bruce Boros, owner of three urgent care centers in the Florida Keys, they thwart doctors at every turn.

“We’re getting the shit kicked out of us, there’s nowhere to go,” he told me.

“The CEOs and administrators of hospitals are threatening us. You’re going to be fired. You must walk in lockstep with our standard of care.”

After recounting harrowing experiences in New York City ICUs early in the pandemic, a critical care physician, Dr. Mollie James, concluded with this: “Doctors must not be blocked from prescribing life-saving medicine in the hospital. Doctors must not be blocked from giving life-saving treatment outpatient.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Mary Beth Pfeiffer is an investigative journalist and author of two books; she has written more than 20 articles on early treatment of COVID since March of 2020. Follow her on Twitter: @marybethpf

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

Pfizer-BioNTech/COMIRNATY Vaccine Is Still Under “STUDY” Runs to be Completed at Different Intervals Between 2022-2026

” – known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis”

In addition to the many debates and conflicts surrounding the “approval” of the Pfizer/BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine, there is interesting information to glean from the documents involved surrounding this controversy.

The below documents, some from the FDA’s own website, sheds further light into what seems to be a product still in its experimental/study phase. Some of the revelations are chilling, and doesn’t quite give the reassurance that an “approved” drug of this magnitude is more beneficial to us than what it is purported to be saving us from.

Screenshot of the FDA NEWS RELEASE: FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine
taken on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Selected quotes in gray text boxes are from the above document:

“Specifically, in the FDA’s review for approval, the agency analyzed effectiveness data from approximately 20,000 vaccine and 20,000 placebo recipients ages 16 and older who did not have evidence of the COVID-19 virus infection within a week of receiving the second dose. The safety of Comirnaty was evaluated in approximately 22,000 people who received the vaccine and 22,000 people who received a placebo 16 years of age and older.

Based on results from the clinical trial, the vaccine was 91% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease.

More than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for at least four months after the second dose. Overall, approximately 12,000 recipients have been followed for at least 6 months.

The most commonly reported side effects by those clinical trial participants who received Comirnaty were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, chills, and fever. The vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 and potentially serious outcomes including hospitalization and death.”

There are a couple of notes to take away from this document. In the above quote, it doesn’t quite specify how long the clinical trial lasted. Only that more than half of the clinical trial participants were followed for safety outcomes for 4 months after the second dose. It also states that 12,000 of the recipients were followed for at least 6 months.

Both of these numbers (4 and 6) are incredibly low quantities when taking into account pregnant women who are at the beginning of their pregnancy. The length of the clinical trial does not take into account the full 9 months needed to determine a healthy pregnancy, nor does it allow for any time to safely assess the development of the baby once born.

The data in this document also does not include differences between those of the placebo group compared to that of the “vaccine” group. In addition, if we are to only take the 12,000 participants into account, which from the wording of the document seems to allude that these are the recipients of the vaccine, that would still leave 10,000 participants unaccounted for. Just from the amount of vaccine recipients (22,000), this is 45% of their study that the data does not reflect. If we are to include the 22,000 of the participants who received the placebo, the data that was not tracked would rise to 72%.

There is also the challenge of how they determined that the vaccine actually prevented COVID. Were these recipients exposed to someone with COVID or were deliberately inoculated with the disease to see if they would get infected? Many people, myself included, have gone on for more than a year without developing COVID, or at least “COVID symptoms”. Since this data only involved a 4-6 month trial period, how many of us (vaccinated, placebo, or otherwise) can say that we have not contracted COVID during this time-frame either? Is this implying that unless you’re vaccinated, you will most likely get COVID every 4-6 months?

Another consideration to take into account are the many testimonies from well-respected and renowned doctors/scientists/virologists who are adamant in their assessment that these vaccines are unnecessary and instead further harms the immune system rather than help it.

In the same regard, those who are unvaccinated will obviously then not contract any of the possible side effects that are listed in this document as well as the many adverse events that are reported to VAERS. Which leaves one to wonder if the benefits really outweigh the risks of the COVID vaccines.

There is also the slight alteration on a different page of the FDA website that gives further clarification as to the efficacy of the COVID vaccines – which does not reflect that of what many people are influenced to believe:

Under the heading:

Q: What safety information did FDA evaluate to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for emergency use and approve Comirnaty?

Screenshot of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
taken on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content Current as of August 23, 2021

UPDATE on September 6, 2021: Since the FDA website decided to remove this particular section from their FAQ (as of 9/1/2021), here is a screenshot taken from the web archive showing its existence:

“While the vaccine may not prevent infection, symptoms or transmission of the virus from person to person – “

This seems to be the heart of the matter, and although it continues with, “it is effective in preventing hospitalization and death.” it is in direct conflict with what we were led to believe this whole time. Most of the mainstream media, big tech platforms, health agencies, etc. have insisted that vaccines are needed to stop transmission of the virus and to protect those around us. However, this one simple statement defies everything that people were coerced into believing.

And with the last part of the sentence concluding that it prevents hospitalization and death, which even that is debatable when looking at the scope of the situation, it leaves one to wonder why this would not be an option for people to decide to take that risk on their own account. When comparing data of young individuals as well and their extremely low risk of hospitalization and death in the COVID setting, there ARE acknowledged threats when they are injected with the vaccine.

“Additionally, the FDA conducted a rigorous evaluation of the post-authorization safety surveillance data pertaining to myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and has determined that the data demonstrate increased risks, particularly within the seven days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age compared to females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms. However, some individuals required intensive care support. Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes. The Comirnaty Prescribing Information includes a warning about these risks.”

The FDA is also acknowledging that there are higher risks involved with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and myocarditis and pericarditis, especially in males aged 12-17, and up to age 40.

“Information is not yet available about potential long-term health outcomes.”

“In addition, the FDA is requiring the company to conduct postmarketing studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty. These studies will include an evaluation of long-term outcomes among individuals who develop myocarditis following vaccination with Comirnaty. In addition, although not FDA requirements, the company has committed to additional post-marketing safety studies, including conducting a pregnancy registry study to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes after receipt of Comirnaty during pregnancy.”

The document is also stating that the possibility of myocarditis and pericarditis is an accepted issue and will continue to be monitored after the marketing of the Comirnaty vaccine.

And in a rather blunt admission, FDA states on their own website that Comirnaty is not required to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes after receipt of Comirnaty during pregnancy. This would explain why the initial trial run was only monitored for 4-6 months. An outline in the BLA (Biologics License Approval) also states that Comirnaty will conduct studies on this group as we see in a later section.

BLA documents state Comirnaty vaccine studies to be conducted for the next several years

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text below is page 5 of the FDA BLA Approval document

Your deferred pediatric studies required under section 505B(a) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) are required postmarketing studies. The status of
these postmarketing studies must be reported according to 21 CFR 601.28 and section
505B(a)(4)(C) of the FDCA. In addition, section 506B of the FDCA and 21 CFR 601.70
require you to report annually on the status of any postmarketing commitments or
required studies or clinical trials.

Label your annual report as an “Annual Status Report of Postmarketing Study
Requirement/Commitments”
and submit it to the FDA each year within 60 calendar
days of the anniversary date of this letter until all Requirements and Commitments
subject to the reporting requirements under section 506B of the FDCA are released or
fulfilled. These required studies are listed below:

1. Deferred pediatric Study C4591001 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in children 12 years through 15 years of age.

Final Protocol Submission: October 7, 2020

Study Completion: May 31, 2023

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2023

2. Deferred pediatric Study C4591007 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in infants and children 6 months to <12 years of age.

Final Protocol Submission: February 8, 2021

Study Completion: November 30, 2023

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024

3. Deferred pediatric Study C4591023 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of
COMIRNATY in infants <6 months of age.

Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022

Study Completion: July 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2024

Submit the protocols to your IND 19736, with a cross-reference letter to this BLA STN
BL 125742 explaining that these protocols were submitted to the IND. Please refer to
the PMR sequential number for each study/clinical trial and the submission number as
shown in this letter.

Submit final study reports to this BLA STN BL 125742. In order for your PREA PMRs to
be considered fulfilled, you must submit and receive approval of an efficacy or a labeling supplement. For administrative purposes, all submissions related to these required
pediatric postmarketing studies must be clearly designated as:

• Required Pediatric Assessment(s)

As the document states, the completion study of Comirnaty postmarketing (after approval) is not due until May 31, 2023 / Novermber 20, 2023 / July 31, 2024 respective of older to lower age groups. There is also another important acronym to consider, which is the IND, which stands for Investigational New Drug.

With this knowledge in hand, it’s important to note that the clinical trial run was monitored for 4-6 months after the second dose on around 55% of the recipients, while the actual “approved” drug still in its investigational/study stages is set to be monitored for 2-3 years. This is a sizeable difference in the amount of time to determine safety and efficacy, especially when considering the many events already reported to VAERS. And according to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions page from the FDA website:

Screenshot taken from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Q: Are vaccine providers required to report side effects?
A: Providers administering Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine must report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and to Pfizer the following information associated with the vaccine of which they become aware:
  • Vaccine administration errors whether or not associated with an adverse event
  • Serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination)
  • Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
  • Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death

Acknowledged myocarditis and pericarditis issues being studied on children

” – known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis”

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text in the gray box below are from pages 6-8 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]

We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events
reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA will not be sufficient to assess known
serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of
subclinical myocarditis.

Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under
section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.

Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are
required to conduct the following studies:

4. Study C4591009, entitled “A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of
the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine in the United States,” to evaluate
the occurrence of myocarditis and pericarditis following administration of
COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: August 31, 2021

Monitoring Report Submission: October 31, 2022

Interim Report Submission: October 31, 2023

Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: October 31, 2025

5. Study C4591021, entitled “Post Conditional Approval Active Surveillance Study
Among Individuals in Europe Receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine,” to evaluate the occurrence of myocarditis
and pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: August 11, 2021

Progress Report Submission: September 30, 2021

Interim Report 1 Submission: March 31, 2022

Interim Report 2 Submission: September 30, 2022

Interim Report 3 Submission: March 31, 2023

Interim Report 4 Submission: September 30, 2023

Interim Report 5 Submission: March 31, 2024

Study Completion: March 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024

6. Study C4591021 substudy to describe the natural history of myocarditis and
pericarditis following administration of COMIRNATY.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: January 31, 2022

Study Completion: March 31, 2024

Final Report Submission: September 30, 2024

7. Study C4591036, a prospective cohort study with at least 5 years of follow-up for
potential long-term sequelae of myocarditis after vaccination (in collaboration
with Pediatric Heart Network).

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021

Study Completion: December 31, 2026

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2027

8. Study C4591007 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical
myocarditis following administration of the second dose of COMIRNATY in a
subset of participants 5 through 15 years of age.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this assessment according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: September 30, 2021

Study Completion: November 30, 2023

Final Report Submission: May 31, 2024

9. Study C4591031 substudy to prospectively assess the incidence of subclinical
myocarditis following administration of a third dose of COMIRNATY in a subset of
participants 16 to 30 years of age.

We acknowledge the timetable you submitted on August 21, 2021, which states
that you will conduct this study according to the following schedule:

Final Protocol Submission: November 30, 2021

Study Completion: June 30, 2022

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2022

It is interesting that the timing to be considered for approval of these vaccines was only a 4-6 month timeframe, however, known dangers/risks, identified as “serious”, are still allowed to be approved and to be studied for 2+ years.

The document also recognizes that myocarditis and pericarditis is enough of a concern to happen after administration of the Comirnaty vaccine, since it mentions several studies just for this specific adverse event, and to continue to assess these reports.

In addition to all of the substudies to be conducted, there is a study to be initiated on a select group of participants to administer a third dose of the Comirnaty vaccine.

All of this information leads credence to the fact that even though the Comirnaty vaccine has “officially been approved” by the FDA, it is still in the investigational stages and being experimented upon on the public. And it goes without saying, but if myocarditis and pericarditis (on top of other reported side effects) are serious risks especially in children (“The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age.”), then for this known risk to be offered to infants/toddlers defies any ethically moral boundaries and is in direct violations of the Nuremberg Code.

The next section also provides further evidence that there have been NO studies in the safety/efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine on pregnant women.

Pregnancy/Births were not studied during the initial Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty trial runs

Another snippet from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions website page, states the following:

Screenshot taken from the FDA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Frequently Asked Questions
on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-frequently-asked-questions ]
Content current as of August 23, 2021

Q: Can pregnant or breastfeeding women receive the Comirnaty or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine?

A: While there have been no specific studies in these groups, there is no contraindication to receipt of the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding women. Pregnant or breastfeeding women should discuss potential benefits and risks of vaccination with their healthcare provider.

The acknowledgement above seems to indicate that the FDA and Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty company have side-stepped this particular group in their vaccine studies, and have left it up to the healthcare provider to determine whether or not to administer this vaccine to pregnant women or women who are breastfeeding. This alone should be enough of a statement that there is no sufficient/professional data to analyze if the Comirnaty is safe during pregnancies/breastfeeding stages.

And if one were to consider the VAERS reporting system, in which the Pfizer-BioNTech company is required to report to, there have been numerous conditions of miscarriages/stillbirths/complications during pregnancy after administration of the COVID vaccine. While it is difficult to determine if these complications were a direct result of the vaccine, it is up to the scientific/healthcare community to investigate these cases in a thorough, unbiased and uninfluenced manner.

Another extremely alarming section of the FDA BLA Approval documents shows the following trial to be monitored in pregnant women:

Screenshot taken from from the FDA BLA Approval on August 31, 2021
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
Document dated August 23, 2021

Text in the gray box below are from pages 9-10 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]
POSTMARKETING COMMITMENTS SUBJECT TO REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
UNDER SECTION 506B

We acknowledge your written commitments as described in your letter of August 21, 2021 as outlined below:

10. Study C4591022, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Exposure during
Pregnancy: A Non-Interventional Post-Approval Safety Study of Pregnancy and
Infant Outcomes in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists
(OTIS)/MotherToBaby Pregnancy Registry.”

Final Protocol Submission: July 1, 2021

Study Completion: June 30, 2025

Final Report Submission: December 31, 2025

There are a couple of key takeaways in this section that are of incredible importance. One major term to focus on is the word “NON-INTERVENTIONAL“.

According to What is a Non Interventional Study?, “In general, a non interventional study (NIS) (also called a non interventional trial) is where a patient takes regular medicine, prescribed according to the label. In an NIS, the researcher sets out to exert as little influence as possible on the patient’s condition while studying a medicine’s “…effectiveness, safety and tolerability under real life conditions” (Mishra & Vora, 2010).”

The article also reiterates multiple times that “non-interventional” studies are observational studies – the researchers are not to interfere with the dosages in any way but to prescribe them exactly as listed on the label. It also seems to imply that even if severe side effects show up, they are to still carry through with the “medicinal product” in that patient as prescribed. Another insinuation that one can make is that in order to not interfere with the study, it is not recommended to prescribe treatments that may help alleviate potential side effects. The term “tolerability” is implying to keep the patient going through the side effects in order to continue to study the long-term effects of the investigational new drug.

However, with the inclusion of “real life conditions”, it doesn’t indicate whether the patient can seek out physicians to investigate what is causing the side effects in their system and engage in therapeutic treatments to alleviate these effects. If a study is to be conducted in real life conditions, then it is to be expected that patients will seek treatments on their own while the researcher is only required to observe the patient to see how the alternative treatments interact with the drug/symptoms.

The same article goes on to state that the UK/EU have different definitions of what “non-interventional” means. “Aronson (2004) states… “the term ‘non-interventional’ in the Directive doesn’t mean non-interventional (i.e. non-interference) at all; it refers to an intervention with a licensed medicinal product.”

There is controversy and conflicts in this statement as another article, Interventional or Non-Interventional? Analyzing the Differences Between Clinical Studies Using Medicines in the European Union points out:

“Although defined in DIR 2001/20/EC, non-interventional studies are outside its scope. Due to the lack of harmonized regulation, some studies designed to be non‑interventional may be considered clinical trials by EU authorities. The two blinded studies described in Table 4 (see PDF) were considered clinical trials in the EU for planning on collection of data to support the marketing authorization application of experimental IMPs, despite no IMP being given and normal clinical practice being kept during the study period. Sponsors are thus advised to consult with authorities when planning studies under these conditions and/or whenever the objectives or design may raise questions.”

Further in the article, it states the following, which again, is not reassuring considering the policies/guidelines/mandates that authorities have been engaging in in order to mandate these investigational new drugs (COVID vaccines) onto the public:

“There is no centralized submission procedure for non-interventional studies with the exception of non-interventional PASSs, imposed as an obligation by an EU competent authority.{9} Because non-interventional studies do not have harmonized legislation, some Member States require submissions to regulatory authorities, while others do not. It is therefore important that sponsors are familiar with the regulatory framework of target EU Member States, and that they consult with local competent authorities and ethics committees (ECs) when justified.”

It’s sad to have to point this out, but the quote does specify “competent” authorities. And even the inclusion of “ethics committees” is not comforting seeing as how one of the leading figures in ethics study is Christine Grady, Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and wife of Anthony Fauci – Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the president, and who is also a large spokesperson for the experimental injections.

The other takeaway from section 10 of the FDA BLA documents is the term “TERATOLOGY“.

Definition of teratology
: the study of malformations or serious deviations from the normal type in developing organisms
merriam-webster/teratology

Teratology, branch of the biological sciences dealing with the causes, development, description, and classification of congenital malformations in plants and animals and with the experimental production, in some instances, of these malformations. Congenital malformations arise from interruption in the early development of the organism. Malformations in human infants, for example, may occur because the infant’s genotype contains mutant genes or includes an abnormal number of chromosomes; they also may occur if early in pregnancy the mother has had German measles (rubella), has taken some injurious drug, or has been exposed to an injurious dosage of radiation. Experimental studies suggest similar types of factors can cause malformations in animals and plants.”
britannica/teratology

Now when you combine the terms “non-interventional” and “teratology” together, it is suggesting that the ongoing studies (that were not conducted to begin with even in a clinical trial setting, as per the FDA’s own response) on pregnant women with Comirnaty and on the developing baby, will be monitored with as little intervention as possible and is mostly to be observed for malformations/genetic defects/miscarriages/etc.

In other words, safety and efficacy were never studied in this particular group, and neither was it studied in infants. It has also not been studied for long-term analysis, as the 4-6 month trial runs proves. The current “approval” it is undergoing now is an authorized experiment on the human population that is posing incredibly unnecessary risks when considering the many effective treatments that are already available to combat respiratory illnesses. And the insistent assertiveness to push this “investigational new drug” onto babies/children who are at extremely low risk for this illness is a disastrous decision from those in an “authoritative” position and should be investigated for malfeasance and misconduct.

This is also not the first time that government agencies/health industries/etc. have conducted experiments on the public.

The Tuskegee/Syphilis experiment was initiated onto a selection of African American men between 1932-1972. The study was only stopped (allegedly) after a publication was released on Associated Press in 1972 about the immorally unethical experiments being conducted on this group:

“Of about 600 Alabama black men who originally took part in the study, 200 or so were allowed to suffer the disease and its side effects without treatment, even after penicillin was discovered as a cure for syphilis. Treatment then probably could have saved or helped many of the experiment participants, PHS officials say.”AP WAS THERE: Black men untreated in Tuskegee Syphilis Study

This study seems to echo the sentiments we see going on with the coronavirus situation, in which only one type of drug is being promoted (the COVID vaccines) while suppression of other treatments that have been proven to work (such as Ivermectin) has been denounced by the very same government/health/medical fields that have conducted these experimental studies.

A study that involved the CDC/FDA’s approval, this time on Black and Latino babies, was conducted in the early 1990’s and involved the measles vaccine:

“1990: CDC Inoculated Black and Latino Babies with an Unlicensed Measles Vaccine
A covert clinical trial by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente inoculated Black and Latino babies with an experimental measles vaccine without informing parents the vaccine was experimental. More than 1500 six-month old black and Hispanic babies in Los Angeles are given the deadly “experimental” measles vaccine that had never been licensed for use in the United States; a vaccine that had been tested in African and Mexican babies resulting in high death rates. The parents were never informed and they never gave their consent. The CDC harmed babies, violated federal law, and trampled on parental rights with impunity.”
1990 FDA Issued a Waiver From Consent; Covert CDC Experimental Vaccine Test on Black / Latino Babies

It’s interesting that the measles vaccine experiment identifies Kaiser Permanente specifically, because as we see in another section of the FDA BLA Approval for Comirnaty, it seems as if Kaiser Permanente makes another appearance in the role of human experimentation:

Text in the gray box below is from page 10 of the FDA BLA Approval documents
[ https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download ]

13. Study C4591014, entitled “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine
Effectiveness Study – Kaiser Permanente Southern California.”

Final Protocol Submission: March 22, 2021

Study Completion: December 31, 2022

Final Report Submission: June 30, 2023

It would seem that the approval by the FDA of these IND drugs (Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine) is a way for the government/health agencies to skirt away from liability by stating that since the vaccines are no longer “experimental” by their definition, and that they are FDA “approved”, it is no longer required to gain informed consent of these drugs. In addition, as to the technicality of their terms and protocols, there are a multitude of ways to interpret their “informed consent” rules, which officials can then bend or define in any way that best reflects the use of their study/drug.

[ https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/informed-consent#exceptions ]

Also keeping in mind how long it was determined before the “health agencies” granted approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Comirnaty vaccine – (4-6 months) – it would be conclusive to state that the vaccines have NOT sufficiently been studied in young children or pregnant women (or even the rest of the age groups because of the short amount of time the clinical trial study was conducted in), and the subsequent approval of this vaccine is to continue this research on the population who is exceedingly being pressured into taking this investigational new drug.

There is also the matter of the many adverse events that have been reported since the inoculation of these injections, that have largely gone unheeded within the health/medical institutions that are endorsing this drug. Other than the widely acknowledged myocarditis and pericarditis, most common in young males, which is still being studied and allowed to persist onto the public.

So again, taking into account the collusion of the government/health/medical/research fields to conduct experiments on the public, it would be necessary to reflect upon these agencies for additional breaches upon human rights, consent, and ethical behavior.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Ahmad Ardity from Pixabay

Dr. Peter McCullough Interview with Mike Adams | “All to prepare the population for mass vaccination.” [Transcript]

“It’s astonishing how dangerous the vaccines are.”

In keeping with providing written transcripts for those who prefer to read text as opposed to watching videos, I have transcribed the following interview between Mike Adams and Dr. Peter McCullough.

Another in-depth/informative video with Dr. Peter McCullough that is transcribed in full can be found here: Dr. Peter McCullough / John Leake – Full Interview [Transcript]

Thank you to Mike Adams and Dr. Peter McCullough. While all of the information is incredibly helpful and insightful, I did highlight some pertinent topics that were discussed and some embellishments were added for emphasis.

 

Also thank you to all the doctors/scientists/researchers, etc. who have been brave enough to stand up for their patients and for humanity in general. Your bravery and integrity speaks volumes of your character and exemplifies what it means to be a strong, compassionate individual, especially in the midst of adversity and vitriol.

Mike Adams: “Welcome everyone to another extraordinary interview here on Brighteon Conversations. Remember, we are the platform where we can exercise free speech that is not allowed on the major big tech platforms. And today we have a first time guest, but you’ve seen him in other interviews, or perhaps you haven’t since some of those interviews have been banned.

But, his name is Dr. Peter McCullough, and he is just an extraordinary individual. He’s a professor of medicine, Texas A&M, Dallas; he’s published I think 42 peer reviewed papers on covid. He’s been on the forefront of trying to help save lives in this and he has a very powerful and very timely message for what’s happening with medicine and science, and covid.

So Dr. McCullough, it’s an honor to have you on, thank you for joining me today.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Yeah, thanks for having me, Mike, it’s great to be here.”
Mike Adams: “Well, it’s great to have you on. You’ve been one of the most requested guest for our audience; they’ve been just really enthralled by what you have said in other interviews. Can you give us kind of a summary of where you think we are right now with covid, and the failed response by government authorities around the world? Why are they not doing the right thing?”

Safe treatment for COVID is available – NO VACCINE NEEDED (and in certain cases, treatment isn’t even needed)

Dr. Peter McCullough @1:49: “Well, a quick summary is that doctors, independent doctors innovated and learned how to treat the virus. So your audience can really settle down and understand that if someone’s over age 50 with multiple medical problems, they can be treated with a standard multi drug protocol plus nutraceuticals, get through the illness just fine, and avoid hospitalization and death. So we’ve taken the fear out of covid-19, we treat it at home.

Individuals under age 50, no medical problems, they can breeze through the illness, no treatment needed, unless severe symptoms develop, and again it just it’s nutraceutical bundle, which is probably modestly helpful. The drugs that really helped, I mean, we used EUA monoclonal antibodies, the Regeneron products – all doctors can make a call to their local emergency room, patients get an antibody infusion, just like president Trump got. You saw how he breezed through covid, that can be done. So if I got a senior call me today, I’d have him go to the Baylor ER, get an antibody infusion, they’ll breeze right through it. We used drugs in sequence, oral drugs to reduce viral replication, we use inhaled and oral steroids – “

Mike Adams: “Can you list some of those medications, please? Because people want to write these down.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Right, so the first thing we do is we use nutraceuticals, that would be zinc, 50 milligrams / vitamin D, 5,000 International Units / vitamin C, 3,000 milligrams / quercetin 500 milligrams, twice a day – that’s a good nutraceutical bundle right there. Probably modestly helpful and actually there are some supportive data. For the antibodies we have a Regeneron product that’s given IV and it’s given over an hour, with an hour observation down in the ER; you can go in by schedule in the first couple days of illness, but to get it done.

If someone is admitted, on the other side of the admission we can actually give a GlaxoSmithKline monoclonal antibodies. These are very helpful drugs and patients should demand them. So they should ask for these drugs, they shouldn’t be a mystery to get them. Just ask for the Regeneron antibody infusion – it’s what president Trump got – “

Mike Adams: “What’s your take on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Yeah, so after the antibody infusion, then we can use oral drugs. And we have hydroxychloroquine, over 200 supportive studies, 200 milligrams, twice a day; ivermectin about 60 supportive studies there, and we can use about 18 milligrams a dose every other day for 3 doses. And then outside the United States favipiravir. We combine them with azithromyacin or doxycycline, to reduce bacterial super infection and to reduce overlap between what’s called atypical organisms, and then we use inhaled budesonide, 800 milligrams twice a day – micrograms twice a day. If on day 5 respiratory symptoms, we use oral prednisone for about a quick 5 days, no taper. We use a drug called colchicine once a day, for 30 days. Reduces inflammation. And then really on the backend we use aspirin, 325 milligrams a day as a blood thinner; then high risk patients we use lovenox.

So the doctor will decide with the patient which kind of program it’s going to be, but it’s typically things to reduce viral replication, things to reduce inflammation, and then thrombosis. None of the drugs are individually essential. There are protocols where no hydroxychloroquine and no ivermectin is used, and just the anti-inflammatories and blood thinners are used. That’s the South African Pedi approach. Others kind of, kind of feature hydroxy or ivermectin – that’s fine too.

Access to doctors treating COVID (free services available)

Peter McCullough @5:30: But what the listeners need to know is that there are adequate signals of benefit and acceptable safety to use drugs in combination. The only people who get admitted to the hospital and die, are the ones who get no outpatient treatment. So we have to demand treatment. We have the American Physicians and Surgeons, AAPS, online’s got a free guide. Download it, everybody should have it; it’s been downloaded millions of times. We have a list of treating doctors.

There’s another wonderful site called the Frontline Critical Care Consortium, FLCC. They also have a great network of doctors. We have 4 national telemedicine services. The featured one is called MyFreeDoctor.com. And that’s a free service! You don’t need your insurance or anything. You just give a donation if you want to. Doctors work 24 by 7, they will take your intake, they’ll get the medicines called in to your pharmacy. If your pharmacy won’t fill them, we’ll use a mail order pharmacy, we’ll get the drugs to you – get going, and nobody has to suffer through this illness. There are 15 regional telemedicine services, 500 treating doctors, It’s called Sequence Multi Drug Therapy, it’s published in the peer review literature – been used millions of times.

Let me say this much, this has really kicked in the early part of January. We crushed our curve – that’s what crushed our curve. That was before anybody was vaccinated. We crushed our curve. Since that time we’ve been flat, kind of flat at leveling out through the pandemic. Mexico City crushed their curve with the early treatment. Down in South America, countries did; India just crushed their curve with early treatment. Early treatment treats the problem! Masks and vaccines don’t actually treat the illness. We need to treat the illness with multiple drugs.”

Huge censorship from big tech/media and health agencies | Medical dictatorship

Mike Adams @7:11: “Well how shocked are you in observing the official response to this? How shocked are you as a trained, published physician, who has the, the right motivation to help save lives, to help people get well, to reduce human suffering… This is supposed to be the moral code of being a physician. How shocked are you of the suppression of all the things that you just mentioned? From big tech censoring the mention and the CDC censoring, and the WHO censoring – why didn’t we have a national response that said, “Hey, let’s use what works.”?

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Well, we should have. We should have had doctors in charge who actually are real doctors who are board certified who are taking care of patients with covid-19. We needed doctors who had courage, who actually behaved like trauma surgeons. We don’t need doctors on TV who are not working in teams, who are not board certified, who have never seen a covid patient. That’s what America in the world has been looking at here and it’s really an atrocity.

You know, doctors always work in teams. We should never have a single doctor say anything on TV. Get a team! Get a team. We work in teams in rounds. We’ve seen no international collaboration. Do you know, I gave […] rounds today by webex to France. And we were collaborating. We were exchanging ideas. Americans have not seen any exchange of ideas between doctors on TV. They’ve basically seen a medical dictatorship. From one person. And Americans should be very alarmed on where’s the teams of doctors, where’s the international collaboration.

You know here I’m sitting here in Texas and you know a few hours south of us they’re handing out treatment kits by the millions! In baggies. And Texas would never know about it. Because there’s not any window to the outside world.”

Deliberate suppression of medical treatment and malfeasance in the health industry

Mike Adams @8:57: “Now, you’ve published many, many papers. You’re one of the most prolific writers in the area of internal medicine, and your work is sided by thousands of other studies and papers. So your history here of research and medicine is unassailable.

And what you just said about a medical dictatorship seems so true when last year, remember when states and I believe Michigan was one of them, actually outlawed the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine for covid. Why would a state government criminalize – oh, and by the way, that happened after the Lancet published that, later retracted, a bogus study that said hydroxychloroquine caused heart tissue/scarring and so on. But this seems like a medical dictatorship as you said, prohibiting the practice of good medicine by doctors who are on the frontlines. Would that be an accurate assessment?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “It’s accurate. Someone just sent me a treatment protocol from one of the Baylor Scott & White hospitals in our health system in central Texas. Kind of right applies to you. And that protocol to this day says ‘Do not use hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19.’

We have 200 supportive studies. Lancet published a fraudulent paper. The FDA, based on the fraudulent paper said ‘do not use hydroxychloroquine’. Here we are, a year later, and hospital treatment guidelines say don’t use hydroxychloroquine. No one reviewed the literature. No one updated the literature. We have 200 studies. There’s a 30,000 patient study from Iran showing a giant reduction in hospitalization and death with hydroxychloroquine based program.

So what you’re seeing here is bad research. It’s bad medicine. People aren’t updated. There should be weekly updates. Monthly guidelines updates. Here, we’re frozen in time, fraudulent paper, ill-advised guidance from the FDA, and frozen in time with no contemporaneous review. None. It’s malfeasance.

Mike Adams: “Well that’s the thing. It seems, at least in my assessment, they deliberately pushed a fraudulent study through the Lancet, and I believe also in the New England Journal of Medicine, knowing that the retractions might never really happen. Like they’ve established now that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and it’s hard to ever get that taken back out of the medical literature or even in the minds of the people who rely on that literature. So it’s kind of like, you know, the New York Times publishing something that’s false and then the retraction comes on page 8 in small print, you know, a day later – nobody sees the retraction.”

Intentional corruption for the purpose of hurting people | Attack on hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Peter McCullough @11:36: “I agree with this. I agree with you. I think it was intentional. I think the entire action was intentional and it was aligned to do harm. It was aligned to hurt people. And hydroxychloroquine became the focal point of how individuals with intent to do harm could do harm.

You know hydroxychloroquine, the second largest hydroxychloroquine plant outside of Taipei, was mysteriously burned to the ground. We heard words of hydroxychloroquine being burned at night in the pharmacies across Africa. In Queensland, Australia, in August, or – in early in April of last year, Queensland, Australia, they put it on the books that they would put a doctor in jail if a doctor tried to help a patient with hydroxychloroquine.

Now come on! I prescribe this every day. Rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, we can give it to pregnant women. I mean we prescribe hydroxychloroquine – you can give it to patients with dry eyes and other rheumatologic conditions. And suddenly in covid-19, we can’t use a simple, safe drug to help people?

Something Americans should think: something is REALLY wrong. We should have been, you know, we had the right idea – we stockpiled hydroxychloroquine, we had it ready to go, but then we didn’t release it from the stockpile! We made it impossible to use.”

Mike Adams: “Well, you just hinted at something, I want to explore this a little more deeply with you, that you got to intent. You believe that the intent was to cause harm. And I think most of our viewers would absolutely agree with you. And I do too, although I’m here asking your view, not really my views here today, but, if their intent was to cause harm and not just complacency or bureaucracy or inadvertent mistakes, what does this mean about this, the institution of medicine and science in the context of this pandemic? I mean, why aren’t they trying to save as many lives as possible? What’s going on here?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “It’s in the minds of doctors. In fact, there was a doctor who has done some of the, really just, I think, probably low-quality research, some very poor randomized trials that were stopped early – and they always stop early. Hydroxychloroquine is always a little bit ahead, and it’s winning; they stop early and say, ‘Oh, there’s no difference. Hydroxychloroquine didn’t do anything.’ Well, there’s a doctor who’s been leading some of these studies, he put out a message on twitter and said, ‘Oh, most good doctors have moved on from hydroxychloroquine.’

It’s like, you know, why state that, when hydroxychloroquine is a worldwide standard. It’s a standard, it’s always been a standard in Europe, in Rome, in Italy, it has a whole program called Treatment Domiciliary at Home. [Erik Rimaldi – sp?], who leads that effort, they’ve had major rallies in piazzas all over Italy, declaring ZERO hospitalizations with an early approach to hydroxychloroquine. Thousands and thousands of people. It’s standard in Iran. It’s standard in Russia. Used widely in India.

And you know what? When the first wave of covid-19 hit, in March of last year, that was the Wuhan version. That was the wild-type. That was the most serious version. You know, covid’s gotten easier and easier to treat. But the most serious wave, we had a very little blip in the United States. You know why? Because we had a massive use of hydroxychloroquine. It was then when agencies tried to kill it. That’s when the epidemic got out of control. We should have stuck with hydroxy hard all the way through. And you know, ivermectin works fine. We don’t use them alone. But when we sync them in with aspirin and steroids, blood thinners and colchicine, the program works tremendously. 85% reductions in hospitalizations and death.” 

Mike Adams: “Well, how much do you think a profit motive is behind this? I mean, do you get the feeling that if hydroxychloroquine were a new, on-patent drug, that just came out, Johnson & Johnson let’s say, and it were a thousand dollars a dose, and all governments offered to buy it at a thousand dollars a dose, do you get the feeling that suddenly it would be a miracle cure in the media if that were the case?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “No I don’t, believe it or not. I don’t think it’s a profit motive. You know, Merck, in Santa Fe, have had oral drugs. In development. They’re a part of Operation Warp Speed. They’ve been on slow gear with these oral drugs. Slow gear. You’d think if these companies wanted to make some money on oral drugs, then these drug companies, they know how to do big trials. They know how to move fast. Why are they moving at a snail’s pace? You know, we are overloaded with millions of cases of covid-19. You know what we needed? We needed 20,000 person outpatient trials of multiple drugs. And we needed it last year. Nobody did that. And believe me, they all had the resources. So I don’t think it’s profit driven.”

MOTIVE: Mass vaccination | “A NEEDLE IN EVERY ARM”

Mike Adams @16:30: “What do you think is the motive of this suppression of the treatments?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “I think it was all to prepare the population for mass vaccination. I think it was very intentional, to maximize the amount of fear, suffering, hospitalization and death, to prepare the population to accept mass vaccination. And when mass vaccination came out, they didn’t say targeted, or just for the seniors, or just for the maximum benefit is, they said ‘A NEEDLE IN EVERY ARM’. And they meant it.

And nowadays, that’s all you hear about, morning/noon/and night, is vaccination. You don’t see a word about treatment in the hospital, any updates on treatment; it’s vaccination morning/noon/and night, and people are dreaming of mass vaccination. We have doctors screaming at patients telling them they have to be vaccinated. Doctors saying that only vaccinated patients can be in their waiting room. I mean, everything has been set up on this vaccine. There’s been Saturday Night Live skits, about the vaccine. Since when do we do that? Vaccines are never that exciting!”

McCullough Report available on americaoutloud.com

Mike Adams @17:36: “I want to ask you more details about the vaccine, I just want to remind our viewers here that you have a broadcast; it’s on americaoutloud.com, americaoutloud.com. It’s the McCullough Report – is that once a week, or what’s the schedule on that?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Yeah, it comes out – so it’s run twice on weekends, and then it comes out on the iheartradio and the big podcast platforms – what I do is I bring in experts, who are absolutely – and we go through their backgrounds, so America knows these are the top people, all over the world, and we do interviews. You know, I try to go 8 to 10 minutes and really get the key information out. And I’ve interviewed absolutely the top people in order to break through to America.

“We are going to squash any valid scientific information on treatment and on safety and just mass promote the vaccine.”

Peter McCullough @18:21: Because we have what’s called the Trusted News Service. I hope everybody understands this. We have an overt censoring program that all the major media signed on to at the beginning of December. And the agreement was, that they were going to mass promote the vaccine, and they were going to suppress all information on treatment and vaccine safety. And everybody signed off on it. Everybody did! So MSNBC, NBC, CNN, twitter! Youtube! They have explicitly said, ‘we are going to squash any valid scientific information on treatment and on safety and just mass promote the vaccine.’ And that’s what we got.”

Mike Adams: “Yeah, and you’re exactly right. It’s just been propaganda and a couple of things that I’ve noticed in the media about vaccines, is number 1, any vaccine injuries are always designated ‘rare’, no matter how many people they impact. Such as the myocarditis affecting young healthy men, right now.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Can I address that, because I agree with you. It has been said to be rare – any claim that something is rare means, that you have to go through every person vaccinated and see if they got it! You just can’t take a small number of cases that got pushed forward and divide it by everybody who got it and, and on priority, say that people who on the denominator didn’t get it, that’s not true.

So last night I was on Fox news, and the announcer said, ‘Well what about, you know these are rare cases.’ I said, “Listen, there’s 387,000 safety reports with the vaccines. That’s more than any medical product in history by a mile.” And he goes, ‘Well these are rare.’ I said, “Well, I don’t think so. That’s not rare.” So the answer is with these vaccines, none of these things are rare. In fact, they are far too common and it’s worrisome.”

Mike Adams: “Well, and it shows the intellectual dishonesty. Because they can use that word ‘rare’ in whatever way they want. You can bet that if a dietary supplement were causing this number of reports, it would be called a danger to the public and common. It wouldn’t be rare.”

Excessive deaths from COVID vaccine shows it is NOT “safe and effective”

Dr. Peter McCullough @20:31: “Well let me give you some standards: 1976, Swine flu pandemic, 25 deaths, 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, it was 22 million people vaccinated, it’s off the market. Ok.

A drug, typically a drug, 5 unexplained deaths, gets a black box warning for death. 50 unexplained deaths, off the market! Ok? With all the vaccines combined, 500 million shots a year, 70 vaccines, we get about a 150 or 160 deaths that roll in, not related in time to the vaccine over the course of a year.

Covid-19, we’re at 6,100 deaths; 44% occur in the 48 hours after the shot. And we started to see the mortality diverge from expected, on January 22nd, and there’s been NO safety report from the FDA or NIH. Or nothing on the media. No press briefing on vaccine safety. None!

Americans should be alarmed that we have not had a press briefing on safety. We should be very alarmed! The vaccines, it may not work, but it should be safe! And if we don’t have any update or press briefing on safety, no publication of safety, I think Americans should be greatly alarmed.”

Mike Adams: “Well, but the other thing that the media does is they say, even when they acknowledge some adverse reactions, they say the benefits are worth the risks. But, as you know, as a scientist yourself, when you’re talking about an age group that only has maybe a one in a million chance of mortality from the vaccine – I’m sorry, from covid, what possible benefit can there be that outweighs any substantial risk, right? There’s no benefit to taking it in those age groups.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “No, there’s some countries that really – for instance, Germany, is pretty similar to the United States, I want to say maybe they have 30% of people vaccinated? They’re just kind of focusing on people over 65. I think Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida had the right thing. Remember, he didn’t fool around. He got the people over 65 vaccinated then the rest of it.

It’s very hard at this point in time with the amount of safety and amount of neurologic damage, heart damage, blood clots and deaths with these vaccines, it’s very hard to find any group that would benefit right now. I was, you know, encouraging the vaccine to my patients, about 70% of them got it in December/January/February, and right now based on the safety, I can’t in good conscience – I can’t, you know, I can’t recommend it to anybody. Maybe on a case by case basis.

There’s going to be a far safer vaccine coming called NovaVax, and NovaVax… [indistinguishable] and should be much much better in terms of safety. We’re hoping that they can speed this one in and phase out the first generation of vaccines.”

Deceptive terminology used to mislead the public. Vaccine consent form says “This is not approved.”

Mike Adams @23:37: “So another thing that I’ve noticed that the media doing on this is they conflate emergency authorization use with quote “approval” of the vaccine. So you’ll see newscasters tell their audiences things like, ‘Well, the FDA has approved all these vaccines’, but they haven’t, really. It hasn’t gone through the long-term clinical trials, it hasn’t been declared safe or efficacious, either one. What – do you think this is just part of the deliberate deception, or what?

Dr. Peter McCullough:Yeah, I think it is deliberate, deceptive. Americans who have gotten the vaccine, and 45% of Americans have gotten the vaccine, so that’s about half of your audience, Mike, they’ve signed the consent! They know exactly what the vaccine consent says. It says ‘This is not approved.’ It says ‘We don’t know if this is going to work.’ It says ‘It’s investigational.’ Means it’s research. Means you’re signing up for research. And they collect your personal information to track you. And it says ‘We don’t know what the side effects are.’ They can range all the way from a sore arm to death. And that’s what the consent form – 45% of Americans signed up for this.

Genetic gene delivery vaccines create dangerous spike protein that cause damage to cells, blood vessels and cause blood clots.

Peter McCullough @24:47: The vaccines that they signed up for are considered genetic gene delivery medicines. Ok? They are genetic, biologically active products. Ok? The typical vaccine is either a protein, or a dead virus, or an inactivated virus. It’s never a gene transfer substance. So whoever signed up for this, and 45% of your listeners signed up for this, they took Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J, they took a genetic product. Ok? That product transfers genetic material into your cells. That’s what it did. And then inside the cells, and there’s cells all over the body, they produce a dangerous protein called the spike protein. And wherever the genetic material goes, and we know, it goes to the brain, it goes to the heart – it produces the spike protein, which is inside cells, damages those cells, it damages the surface of those cells, causes inflammation, and then from there it travels in the body for about 2 weeks causing damage to blood vessels and causing blood clots.

So Senator Johnson, last night, had a townhall for vaccine injury victims. And there were dozens of them and they told America about how they’ve sustained brain damage. Or heart damage from the vaccine. And this has occurred in thousands and thousands of people. 21,000 people have been hospitalized after the vaccine. 27% of them are below age 50. It’s astonishing how dangerous the vaccines are.

Mike Adams: “Yeah, and you just mentioned several bombshells there that I want to get into. You referred to the bio-distribution study – one of which I’m aware is out of Japan; and the mainstream vaccine industry claims that these spike protein nanoparticles do not circulate throughout the body, but the studies show they do. Think there’s another pharmacokinetic study as well that establishes that.

What you just mentioned is huge. I mean, just based on that research alone, it seems like the FDA should pull the emergency authorization and say, ‘Wait a second, we need to study this in more depth. We can’t inject people if this is circulating throughout the entire body.’ But they’re not doing that. What’s going on?”

Nanoparticles in the vaccines concentrating in the ovaries – causing drop in fertility

Dr. Peter McCullough @27:11: “The vaccines that Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer/Moderna have a very dangerous mechanism action. We cannot have genetic substances circulating in our body in lipid nanoparticles or other forms of matrix nanoparticles and go to our brain! We can’t do that! I mean, that cannot be allowed. It’s a dangerous mechanism action.

The Japanese did not trust Pfizer, and when Pfizer said it stayed locally in the arm, the Japanese said ‘We don’t trust you. Show us where this goes’, and it was a biodistribution study done of the nanoparticles, not the messenger RNA, but the nanoparticles, and they went everywhere. They did wash out of organs in a couple of days but they hyper-concentrated in the ovaries.

In Europe, they didn’t trust Moderna on fertility. And they asked them, ‘What happens to fertility with Moderna?’ They did an animal study and Moderna dropped fertility.

The FDA, Mike, told Pfizer/Moderna and J&J,  ‘No pregnant women. No women of child-bearing potential who cannot assure contraceptive.’ They did that for a reason. They knew the vaccines should not be used in young women and they knew that.”

Mike Adams: “And yet the vaccine is being promoted for pregnant women all across America today by the medical establishment, but just getting back to that study, as I recall, one of the other areas where the nanoparticles tended to cluster was in the adrenals. So now we’re talking about a hormonal interference which could affect fertility, it could affect mental states, moods, it could affect SO many things. Right? In the body. Unknown effects.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Right. Well there have been nanoparticle studies, there was one from China published about 8 years or so ago that tested these nanoparticles. And they asked, ‘Where did they go?’ And they made a brilliant nice rainbow of all the organs where the nanoparticles showered, and they did show that they go to the ovaries. So the point is, and the adrenals, so the point is, the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, they KNEW or they should have known that these particles are gonna hit these vital organs. And then when they drop their genetic payload then they’re going to start producing the spike protein and damaging cells in those organs. So it was not surprising when young women were ill-advised and took the vaccines they started having problems with their periods. That was not unexpected.

“These vaccines are directly killing babies in the first trimester and it is absolutely atrocious. Horrible!”

Peter McCullough @29:41: In a New England Journal of Medicine paper of pregnancy, women who took the vaccine, the authors concluded that it was safe to give the vaccine in pregnancy. Now, no woman carried the baby 9 months because the vaccines haven’t been around 9 months, but they looked at different windows of time, and they divided all the pregnancy loss rates by the largest denominator possible, so it was really false reporting. When we zeroed in on the first trimester, and just divided by those who got the vaccine in the trimester, not those who got it later on, there was an 83% loss in fetal – in the babies. So these vaccines are directly killing babies in the first trimester and it is absolutely atrocious. Horrible!

@30:27: [indistinguishable] – college right now, is recommending that women, pregnant women, take the covid-19 vaccine. Pregnant women can breeze right through covid-19. There has been some bad outcomes, but it is very treatable with our drugs, we can even use hydroxychloroquine through pregnancy, we can use prednisone and other drugs. No woman should EVER take the risk with the covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Period! If the FDA, Pfizer/Moderna didn’t allow it in their clinical trials, it should be – not be allowed in practice today.”

Mike Adams: “Yeah, and that’s – you’re talking common sense medicine, here. But it seems like common sense has been thrown out the window. But I’m so glad you brought this up, because it seems like beginning in about maybe 6 months and continuing on we may see a collapse in birth rates, and maybe ongoing infertility problems. But that brings up the obvious question: do you think that there is an infertility or long-term population reduction agenda? Many people believe that. Lots of my guests have discussed that. Is that something that you subscribe to, or is it – we don’t have enough data yet to conclude that?”

Addressing “conspiracy theories” and the brainwashing of the public

Dr. Peter McCullough @31:32: “You know, I can’t – I’ve been so focusing on the medical response and taking care of my patients. I know others are working on, you know, people have called them “conspiracy theories”; the, you know the rapper, RC rapper, says, you know, it’s not a conspiracy theory if it keeps coming true. And I’m not going to comment on conspiracy theories but if you ask me, do you think these vaccines are going to have an impact on fertility, I think the answer is yes.

We’ve already seen that with the Moderna application and now with the fetal loss. Data fairly calculated from the New England Journal of Medicine study, there’s no doubt about it. Pregnant women are going to lose their babies if they take the vaccine. And it’s worse than that. Once they’ve conceived and they’re breastfeeding, we now have events in the Vaccine Adverse reporting system where women take the vaccine, they generate the spike protein, and we infer the spike protein goes through the milk and kills the baby.

So these vaccines need to stay away from babies and mothers and women who are trying to conceive. I mean, that can’t be a more clear message.

You know, women are concerned about drinking half a glass of wine during pregnancy. How in the world can they take a shot of a wildly experimental, unproven, unsafe vaccine for the first time? How could they ever do it? It’s almost as if Americans and doctors and everybody are just brainwashed together. They are brainwashed! They’ve been propagandized and they are blindly accepting something that they should just stay away from.”

Doctors getting silenced, threatened, fired for speaking out against the narrative

Mike Adams @32:58: “Well I think most of our audience would agree with that. And by the way, you mentioned earlier about the percentage of people getting the vaccine, and I think I’m proud to say close to zero percent of our audience has taken this vaccine. Very close to zero percent. Because they’re well educated and well informed.

But I want to ask you about possible pushback because, you know, many doctors have been threatened, censored, fired for speaking out. They’ve been silenced. Even early on. I remember New York City, back in late March of last year, one particular doctor was saying, ‘Woah! We need to be treating this as an oxygen deprivation condition affecting hemoglobin.’ And he was silenced! And this has happened ever since then. What kind of pushback are you getting? Are they trying to silence you from doing interviews like this?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “No, I have to tell you, I have over 600 peer-review publications. I’m the editor of two major journals, senior associate editor of a third. I’m the most published person in my field in the world. I’ve had covid-19 myself. I’ve suffered through it. My wife’s side of the family, we’ve had fatalities in her side of the family. I can tell you right now, I am supremely qualified to give my opinions. I have the right to give my opinions. And anybody who thinks they can threaten me or take me on, bring it on. No one’s had the guts to do it. And they would absolutely, positively be pummeled. And be ashamed.

Lack of courage and lack of compassion in the health care industry | Long line of shame

Peter McCullough @34:25: In fact, I’ve had a couple people in Indiana, I think they feel shame. They feel ashamed for their lack of courage and their lack of ability to compassionately help patients. Patients cried out for help. 600,000 of them cried out for help. Doctors, health care systems, and clinics turned them down. They suffered. Then they were hospitalized. They went into isolation, Mike, they never saw their families again and then they died.

We have a long, long line of shame. And there’s a lot of people walking that line of shame. Most of them can’t look me in the eye. I’ll tell you right now. They cannot look me in the eye. They are so ashamed of themselves.”

Awakening out of the trance | Facing the horrific blind actions of “just following orders”

Mike Adams @35:05: “Do you think that there will be, at some point, looking back, some kind of awakening? In previous interviews you’ve described some doctors as being almost like they’re in a trance. Or under a spell of some kind. Do you think that they will be able to awaken from that trance and look at what happened and recognize that that was not a high integrity practicing of medicine?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Some people have said that the awakening out of a trance will be like a Nazi war crime doctors. Where they’ll somehow come out of their trance and they’re going to be terrified at what they did. And I would bring obstetricians right to the very front. And when they come out of their trance and they realize in horror that they were advising pregnant women to get injections of genetic biological – these are gene transfer platforms. Wildly experimental, that produce in an uncontrolled manner, a dangerous protein for the human body that gouges blood vessels, causes blood clots.

We KNOW this. We’ve known that this is a blood-clotting illness for a long time. That they advise this – I think these obstetricians are going to wake up in a cold sweat and they’re going to be HORRIFIED with what they recommended! They are going to be – and it’s going to be – I gotta tell you, we have years of reckoning on this. We have years of reckoning. There is a line of shame that these doctors and nurses and mid-level providers, and clinics, and hospitals will walk, that is atrocious.

In pregnancy, above ALL conditions, it’s “primum non nocere”, we will never do harm to a pregnant woman. We would, you know, we have drugs. We have pregnancy classes, A, B and C. We would NEVER ever give a drug that we even thought had a chance of causing harm to a pregnant woman. Let alone just jack’em up with a genetic juice which we now know is absolutely, positively dangerous.

It is atrocious what’s going on right now and we can’t be more alarmed. I think any woman listening to this, who has any ounce of common sense, ought to absolutely talk to every other woman – and you know what? Have some real conversations with your obstetrician. Give them a phone call. Send an email. And say, ‘Listen. Wake up. What are you doing right here, right now? That’s causing harm.’

Worldwide distrust | Grandparents demanding grandchildren to get vaccinated

Mike Adams @37:22: “And now along with doctors at one point waking up, as you were just describing, do you think that there’s also a very real risk that… when all of this eventually comes out, and looking back on it that the public’s faith in the entire institution of medicine and science, may be so fractured that at that point the public may refuse to even consider helpful interventions and therapies that could save lives. Because all of it may be discredited at some point depending on how big this thing goes.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Right. So with things are really going off the rails, so public […] doesn’t trust the media, doesn’t trust the public agencies, doesn’t trust their doctors or doctor groups, and they don’t trust each other! They don’t trust – do you know right now that there are grandparents that say that they won’t see their grandchildren unless they’re vaccinated! So now they’re putting – and the grandparents are vaccinated. So now they’re putting the risk of blood clots and myocarditis and death onto their grandchildren and saying that they won’t see each other for Disney.

Colleges mandating vaccines for students while faculty (and the FDA/CDC/NIH) are not taking it.

Peter McCullough @38:25: Do you know we have 9% of colleges that are mandating the investigational vaccines. So they’re actually mandating their student bodies participate in research with this, which is openly dangerous biological products. They have no ability to help these youngsters. And you know in many of these colleges: there’s no policy, there’s no exemption process.

And do you know that in many of these colleges their faculties aren’t taking it! Now the FDA, the CDC and the NIH, they’re not taking the vaccine! They’re not taking it! And the faculty’s not taking it! So they’re going to make the students take it under duress!

So the vaccine has been propagandized and now socially weaponized so the universities can hurt the student population! Just like the obstetricians are hurting their patients. Like the grandparents are hurting their grandchildren.

Mike, something is REALLY disturbing; wrong. And there are so many players in this.

The need for integrity, courage, principles… and justice.

Mike Adams @39:23: “Well said, and we’re up against the time here, I mean, we can continue to talk. Maybe, hopefully you can come back and join us again but, I just want to say, the people watching this, thank you for your integrity. And thank you for your courage but also for sticking to your principles. You want evidence, you want to show efficacy, you want to reduce risk and save lives. And that’s what every doctor should be in America, and somehow that – that seems like it’s lost. And that’s what freaks people out as much covid. It’s that ‘who can we trust anymore?’

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Well, I gotta tell you, if there’s ever a time for courage, for integrity, for commitment to principles of medical ethics, and commitment to biomedical science, and lastly, a commitment to justice, now is the time. And listen, if that’s my role, and that’s your role, that’s our role that we’re serving right now. And America needs to get behind its heroes. Because we’ve got a long uphill battle. There is a disturbing trance that is basically like a black cloud over the world right now. And we’re trying to find a way out. There’s so much harm and suffering going on, and NONE of it is needed.”

Mike Adams: “And I’ll tell you, and you are one of the bright points of light in this darkness, and the AAPS, this is a shining moment for that organization. They are so right, they – I don’t even know what to say, but we’re going to interview, I think, other prominent people from the AAPS because their voices are desperately needed right now to save lives and end human suffering. And also help stop this pandemic.

So, thank you Dr. McCullough. It’s an honor to have you on. I really enjoyed this conversation. You’re a wonderful person; I really honor your knowledge and your courage. Thank you.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Thanks Mike. Great interview.”

Thank you to everyone reading and/or watching the interview. Please help spread the word and stay informed. Research is incredibly important, especially in these uncertain times and with the incredible amount of propaganda and deliberate media suppression.

Thank you to everyone exposing these corruptions.