America Out Loud PULSE: Informed Consent and Medical Coercion in the Age of Covid

From my America Out Loud Pulse podcast with Greg Glaser, JD –https://www.americaoutloud.com/informed-consent-and-medical-coercion-in-the-era-of-covid/

Informed consent is the keystone of medical autonomy and participating in our own medical care. It is the physician’s ethical and legal duty to provide informed consent, and patients have the right to make decisions about their own health. Informed consent is generally something people only think about when they are about to undergo a surgical procedure. Thankfully, now “informed consent” is on the tips of the tongues of newly minted advocates of medical freedom.

Many patients and physicians had lost their curiosity about the effects of many medications, including vaccines. But we must not be lazy about exercising our rights. We need informed consent before subjecting our bodies to any outside intervention – even if it is “for our own good.” Assuming you have the mental capacity to make the decision, informed consent must include an understandable explanation of the intervention with the risks and benefits of the medical intervention and the probability that the risk or benefit will occur. Informed consent must voluntarily, without coercion or duress. The physician might not agree with your decision, but the decision is yours to make.

The Covid fiasco has brought to light the element of coercion with the vaccination mandates. The government authorities banned children from in-person schooling, people—including critically needed health care professionals—lost their jobs.

However, the government’s vaccine tyranny did not begin with Covid. We have laws on the books like the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act enacted in 2005. The PREP Act provides nearly blanket immunity from liability for manufacturers, distributors, and administrators of certain drugs meant to counteract an epidemic or pandemic. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) merely determines that something either is or may become a public health emergency. Then HHS can make a “declaration” that certain entities and “countermeasures” (including vaccines) are covered by the PREP Act.

The federal government has given itself a lot of power. Today we’ll discuss returning some of that power to the people with my guest, Greg Glaser, JD.

From Shots to Clots: Science Shows COVID Vaccines Cause Blood Clots

Guest Column by Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn

Americans who have taken COVID vaccine shots and those who have refused to capitulate to the coercion and propaganda are ill-informed about blood clots. This article provides summaries of key recently published research on two types of observed blood clots – microscopic and relatively large size – that merit serious attention and concern. 

One inevitable conclusion is that the FDA with support from big media is not doing its job to ensure truly informed consent by those taking vaccine shots.

Canadian physician reports high levels of clots

Dr Charles Hoffe has been practicing medicine for 28 years in a small, rural town in British Columbia, Canada, and recently gave a long interview. He has given about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA vaccine to his patients. So, contrary to some critics, he is no anti-vaccine doctor.

The core problem he has seen are microscopic clots in his patients’ tiniest capillaries. He said “Blood clots occurring at a capillary level. This has never before been seen. This is not a rare disease. This is an absolutely new phenomenon.”

Most importantly, he has emphasized these micro-clots are too small to show up on CT scans, MRI, and other conventional tests, such as angiograms, and can only be detected using the D-dimer blood test. Using the latter, he found that 62% of his patients injected with an mRNA shot are positive for clotting. He has explained what is happening in bodies.

The spike proteins in the vaccine become “part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium. This means that these cells which line your blood vessels, which are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly now have these little spikey bits sticking out. … when the platelet comes through the capillary it suddenly hits all these COVID spikes and it becomes absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form to block that vessel.”

He made an important distinction: “The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test…The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.”

This is his pessimistic, scientific view: “blood vessels in their lungs are now blocked up. In turn, this causes the heart to need to work harder to try to keep up against a much greater resistance trying to get the blood through your lungs. This is called pulmonary artery hypertension – high blood pressure in the lungs because the blood simply cannot get through effectively. People with this condition usually die of heart failure within a few short years.”

All these medical views have been suppressed by big media., but it was covered well in another alternative news site. And the doctor got some attention by submitting an open letter to the provincial Ministry of Health. A key point in that is this: “It must be emphasised, that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease.

These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.”

The concept of micro blood clots has also been invoked for the serious impacts of COVID itself. The eminent Dr. Peter McCullough noted “So, this is a very different type of blood clotting that we would see with major blood clots in the arteries and veins. For instance, blood clots involved in stroke and heart attack.

Blood clots involved in major blood vessels in the legs. This was a different type of clotting and in fact the Italians courageously did some autopsies and found micro blood clots in the lungs. And so, we understood in the end, the reason why the lungs fail is not because the virus is there. It is because micro blood clots are there. … When People can’t breathe, the problem is micro-blood clotting in the lungs. …The spicule on the ball of the of the virus itself which damages blood vessels that causes blood clotting.” He has also openly stated that none of the COVID vaccines are safe for most people at little risk from COVID.

If spike protein is the cause of micro blood clots in COVID it is also reasonable to see the same phenomenon in vaccinated people impregnated with spike proteins, as Dr. Hoffe as explained.

As to the Canadian situation, The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in July estimated the rate of vaccine-related blood clotting in Canadians who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine and said there have been 27 confirmed cases to date in Canada, with five deaths among those cases, a rather high death rate.

But this is consistent with 6 out of 28 blood clot cases reported by Yale University for the J&J vaccine in the US Also noted was that these were a particularly rare and dangerous blood clot in the brain, known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), because it appears in the brain’s venous sinuses Also noted that there were abnormally low platelet levels in their blood, an unusual situation also found for those impacted by the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Wall Street Journal and Nature Journal

To its credit, the Wall Street Journal published a long article in July on the COVID vaccine blood clot issue. Here are highlights from it.

“Canadian researchers say they have pinpointed a handful of amino acids targeted by key antibodies in the blood of some people who received the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, offering fresh clues to what causes rare blood clots associated with the shot.”

“The peer-reviewed findings, by a team of researchers from McMaster University in Ontario, were published …by the science journal Nature. They could help doctors rapidly test for and treat the unusual clotting, arising from an immune-driven mix of coagulation and loss of platelets that stop bleeding.”

“The blood clotting, which some scientists have named vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia, or VITT, has also been linked to Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 shot, though incidents have occurred less frequently with that shot than with AstraZeneca.”

“Though rare, the condition has proven deadly in more than 170 adults post-vaccination in the U.K., Europe and U.S., according to government tallies. Many were younger adults who appeared healthy before vaccination, researchers and drug regulators say.”

“The total number of cases after first or second doses in the U.K. was 395 through June 23…Of the 395, 70 people have died. European officials said this month that they have seen 479 potential cases of VITT out of 51.4 million AstraZeneca vaccinations…Far fewer potential cases—21 …followed J&J vaccinations in Europe. Of those cases, 100 deaths occurred after AstraZeneca vaccination and four after Johnson & Johnson, European regulators said.”

“U.S. health officials said in late June that they have identified 38 confirmed cases of the blood-clotting syndrome out of more than 12.3 million people who received the J&J vaccine…The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in May that three cases had been fatal and evidence ‘suggests a plausible causal association’ between the combination of low platelets and clotting and the vaccine.”

As to what is going on inside the body: “[In] rare cases, vaccinated people have experienced an autoimmune reaction in which antibodies bind with unusual strength to a blood component called platelet factor 4, or PF4, forming distinct clusters resembling a bunch of grapes. This so-called immune complex, a molecular formation in the blood, activates more platelets, ‘like putting a match to gasoline,’ said John Kelton, an author of the Nature paper and researcher at McMaster University.

The process accelerates, he and other researchers say, triggering simultaneous bleeding and clotting, sometimes in the brain, stomach and other areas that can in rare cases be deadly. ‘We think these antibodies are incredible amplifiers, in a bad way, of the normal coagulation system,’ says Dr. Kelton.”

Interestingly, this article did not mention at all the previously discussed case of the Canadian doctor and his findings about microscopic blood clotting.

New York Times

In April, there was limited coverage of stoppages of some vaccines: “First it was AstraZeneca. Now Johnson & Johnson. Last week, British regulators and the European Union’s medical agency said they had established a possible link between AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine and very rare, though sometimes fatal, blood clots.

The pause in the use of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine in Europe over similar concerns threatens to hurt a sluggish rollout that was just starting to gain momentum.” Also noted was that states paused use of the J&J vaccine after a US advisory.

“Regulators have asked vaccine recipients and doctors to look out for certain symptoms, including severe and persistent headaches and tiny blood spots under the skin.”

New England Journal of Medicine

In April this journal published three research articles on blood clotting related to COVID vaccines and a long editorial by two physicians reviewing all the work. Here are highlights from the latter.

“The Journal has now highlighted three independent descriptions of 39 persons with a newly described syndrome characterized by thrombosis and thrombocytopenia that developed 5 to 24 days after initial vaccination with [the AstraZeneca vaccine]. … These persons were healthy or in medically stable condition, and very few were known to have had previous thrombosis or a preexisting prothrombotic condition.

Most of the patients included in these reports were women younger than 50 years of age, some of whom were receiving estrogen-replacement therapy or oral contraceptives. A remarkably high percentage of the patients had thromboses at unusual sites — specifically, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis or thrombosis in the portal, splanchnic, or hepatic veins. Other patients presented with deep venous thrombi, pulmonary emboli, or acute arterial thromboses. … High levels of d-dimers and low levels of fibrinogen were common and suggest systemic activation of coagulation. Approximately 40% of the patients died, some from ischemic brain injury, superimposed hemorrhage, or both conditions, often after anticoagulation.”

“Better understanding of how the vaccine induces these platelet-activating antibodies might also provide insight into the duration of antigen exposure and the risk of reoccurrence of thrombosis, which will inform the need for extended anticoagulation and might lead to improvements in vaccine design.”

“Additional cases have now been reported to the European Medicines Agency, including at least 169 possible cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 possible cases of splanchnic vein thrombosis among 34 million recipients of the [AstraZeneca] vaccine, 35 possible cases of central nervous system thrombosis among 54 million recipients of the Pfizer–BioNTech mRNA vaccine, and 5 possible (but unvetted) cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis among 4 million recipients of the Moderna mRNA vaccine. Six possible cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (with or without splanchnic vein thrombosis) have been reported among the more than 7 million recipients of the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine.”

Here is the final conclusion; “The questions of whether certain populations can be identified as more suitable candidates for one or another vaccine and who and how to monitor for this rare potential complication will require additional study.”

Salk Institute

In April, the Salk Institute promoted coverage of research conducted by a number of people associated with it. The chief finding was that the spike protein associated with the COVID virus and with vaccines was connected to strokes, heart attacks and blood clots.

“The paper, published in Circulation Research, also shows conclusively that COVID-19 is a vascular disease, demonstrating exactly how the SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system on a cellular level. … the paper provides clear confirmation and a detailed explanation of the mechanism through which the [spike] protein damages vascular cells.”

subsequent article in May examined this work and made several important observations. Here is its perspective, as relevant to the COVID vaccines. “The prestigious Salk Institute…has authored and published the bombshell scientific study revealing that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein used in the Covid jabs is what’s actually causing vascular damage. Critically, all three of the experimental Covid vaccines currently under emergency use authorisation in the UK either inject patients with the spike protein or, via mRNA technology, instruct the patient’s own body to manufacture the spike protein and release them into the blood system.”

“The Salk Institute study proves the assumption made by the vaccine industry, that the spike protein is inert and harmless, to be false and dangerously inaccurate.”

“The research proves that the Covid vaccines are capable of inducing vascular disease and directly causing injuries and deaths stemming to blood clots and other vascular reactions. This is all caused by the spike protein that’s engineered into the vaccines.”

Report by 57 Medical Experts

This May report was prepared by nearly five dozen highly respected doctors, scientists, and public policy experts from across the globe. It went public and was urgently sent to world leaders as well as all who are associated with the production and distribution of the various Covid-19 vaccines in circulation today. The report demanded an immediate stop to COVID vaccinations. Dr. McCullough was one of the signatories.

“Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities,” said the experts.

On the issue of blood clotting in vaccinated people the report said this:
“Some adverse reactions, including blood-clotting disorders, have already been reported in healthy and young vaccinated people. These cases led to the suspension or cancellation of the use of adenoviral vectorized [AstraZeneca] and [J&J] vaccines in some countries. It has now been proposed that vaccination with ChAdOx1-nCov-19 can result in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against Platelet factor-4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Unfortunately, the risk was overlooked when authorizing these vaccines, although adenovirus-induced thrombocytopenia has been known for more than a decade, and has been a consistent event with adenoviral vectors. The risk of VITT would presumably be higher in those already at risk of blood clots, including women who use oral contraceptives, making it imperative for clinicians to advise their patients accordingly.”

Conclusions

Supporters of the COVID vaccines are quick to emphasize that relatively few recipients have experienced post-vaccination blood clotting.  True, except for the findings of the Canadian physician about microscopic blood clots in most of his patients that major news media have ignored.  Also ignored are the findings from the Salk Institute which provide a rationale for seeing spike proteins as causing clots.  Even vaccines not directly including spike proteins – the AstraZeneca and J&J adenovirus vector vaccines – pose a problem because they send genetic instructions into cells to produce the spike protein of the coronavirus.

Even a June case study of one patient who died from clotting after taking the second dose of the Moderna vaccine and not related to anything else stressed the use of “safe” COVID vaccines.  This was also stressed in an accompanying editorial that mentioned: “The highest reported incidence is 5 cases among about 130,000 Norwegian recipients of the [AstraZeneca] vaccine.”

This statistical view of the medical establishment was expressed as: “any potential risks of vaccination must be interpreted in the context of the overall morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 itself.” It also stressed blood clots in hospitalized COVID patients. It cannot be emphasized enough that the vast majority of COVID victims could have been saved through early home/outpatient treatment as detailed in Pandemic Blunder. The proven treatments can stop COVID infection in its early virus replication phase and, therefore, prevent blood clots.

The public also needs strong information about the many advantages of natural immunity, from prior COVID infection or life exposure to various coronaviruses. This is far better than vaccine induced artificial immunity that does less to protect against COVID variants and makes people susceptible to breakthrough infections. For most people the benefits of COVID vaccination do not outweigh the risks.

On the issue of whether all COVID vaccines pose a blood clot threat consider an April study by Oxford University that found the number of people who receive blood clots after getting vaccinated with a coronavirus vaccine are about the same for those who get Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as they are for the AstraZeneca vaccine.  And as already cited the J&J vaccine has also been implicated for clots.

What needs attention by FDA, CDC and NIH is the need to do more testing of vaccine victims to discover through blood testing or autopsies the nature and extent of blood clotting.

For those wanting to see many examples of COVID vaccine negative health impacts this website is recommended. The mission is: “This website is dedicated to sharing the truth about these people and their testimonials. Watch for yourself and make up your own mind.  Is it worth it to risk life-changing and even fatal side effects from a vaccine for a disease that is survived by 99.98% of people under 70?”

Of course, the risk of getting serious blood clots is much higher for those who get a serious case COVID-19 then it is for those who get vaccinated.  They tend to be acute, near-term impacts amenable to various treatments, though sadly not lifesaving in all cases.

More insidious, in the longer run, however, perhaps years after the shots, are the microscopic blood clots noted by Dr. Hoffe and Dr. McCollough that may impact the lives of many people, perhaps millions.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

COVID-19: Should Cases of Guillain-Barré Make a Difference?

by Jane M. Orient, MD

 If you haven’t yet gotten the jab, should the recent reports of Guillain Barré affect your decision?

The FDA is adding a new warning for the Johnson & Johnson COVID jab because of 100 preliminary reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after the administration of 12.8 million doses. Of these reports, 95 were serious and required hospitalization, the FDA statement said, and there was one death. 

Most people fully recover from GBS, but some never fully regain their strength or fine motor skills. It may begin with mild weakness and progress to paralysis of the respiratory muscles, so that artificial ventilation is required. Patients may spend a month or more in the ICU and months in rehabilitation. They may face huge medical bills—the jab is “free,” but care of complications is not.

“Only” one case in 128,000 may be called “rare,” and it might not have been caused by the jab. Each year in the United States, an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 people develop the illness. But in 1976, swine flu vaccines were stopped for one case of GBS in 100,000 doses.

        “Available data do not show a pattern suggesting a similar increased risk of Guillain-Barré with the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines,” states the Washington Post. “More than 321 million doses of those vaccines have been administered in the United States.”

However, as of today, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) contains reports of 9,048 deaths, 7,463 persons disabled, and 26,818 hospitalizations. 

The more user-friendly British Yellow Card System contains reports of 40 cases of GBS with two deaths, and 43,738 “nervous system disorders” with 43 deaths for the Pfizer product. For Moderna, there was only one nonfatal case of GBS listed and 3,331 “nervous system disorders” with two deaths.

“Federal health officials have repeatedly emphasized that the benefits of the coronavirus inoculations far outweigh potential risks,” says the Washington Post. But on the individual level, the calculation is not simply population-wide reported COVID deaths vs. reported vaccine deaths. Issues are:

·         What is the risk of getting COVID in my circumstances and location?

·         What is the risk of complications for a person of my age and health status?

·         What is the risk of breakthrough cases? We need to know the cycle threshold (Ct) to judge whether diagnostic accuracy is comparable for persons with or without the jab.

·         What is the true level of complications? Might there have been 90,000 deaths if only 10% are reported to VAERS?

·         How do we distinguish deaths FROM vs. WITH COVID or vaccine? Is it the same way for both?

Some would like to punish those who decide that for them, the risk of the jab exceeds the benefit. Dr. Leana Wen of CNN, former head of Planned Parenthood, wants to make the choice of being unvaccinated hard and unduly burdensome. This is presumably to protect the public from catching the virus from an unvaccinated person. However, Moderna and Pfizer vaccine trials “have explicitly acknowledged that their gene therapy technology has no impact on viral infection or transmission whatsoever and merely conveys to the recipient the capacity to produce an S1 spike protein.” 

For further information on physicians’ opinions and first-hand reports on adverse reactions by patients, family members, and physicians, see links in AAPS survey results: Majority of Physicians Decline COVID Shots, according to Survey.

COVID-19: Is the Disease Worse than the Jab?

by Jane M. Orient, MD

As reports of jab-related complications rise, many respond that the disease is worse. It too might cause myocarditis, miscarriages, infertility, blood clots, and death. So, get the jab now to keep from getting COVID later.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and others report that “nearly all COVID deaths in U.S. are now among unvaccinated.” The AMA’s source is the Associated Press (AP), which did its own analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The CDC itself has not estimated what percentage of hospitalizations and deaths are in fully vaccinated people, citing limitations in the data.”

As the graph below shows, in the world’s most vaccinated nation, the Seychelles Islands where 70 percent of the population is now vaccinated, the death rate from COVID has steadily increased.

Facts that people need to consider before taking the jab:

·         The risk of a bad outcome from the disease depends on the risk of getting the disease—which is plummeting at the present time.

·         The jab might not protect against the new variants. [We do not tell people to rush to get last year’s flu shot.]

·         Estimates of bad COVID outcomes assume that patients will be denied early or preventive treatment, which is likely 70 to 80 percent effective.

·         Breakthrough infections in vaccinated people are probably under-reported. Since April, CDC has been tracking only cases that resulted in hospitalization or death.

·         “Mild” cases of heart inflammation may be undiagnosed and lead to later heart failure in persons who are untreated and continue strenuous exercise.

For further information, see an extensive interview with cardiologist Peter McCullough, M.D.

For a compendium of some suggested treatment protocols and resources, see c19protocols.com.

Download Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment.

Jane Orient, M.D., Exec. Dir., Association of American Physicians and Surgeonsjane@aapsonline.org

Costly Tradeoff with the Wait for the Vaccine Pandemic Strategy

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Americans and most of the global population for over a year have been consumed with fear, sacrifices and concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. But few people have understood or been given a chance to support or reject what is best seen as the wait for the vaccine pandemic strategy.

Hidden from public view was a most substantial tradeoff between doing what was feasible to save lives of most people infected by COVID starting in the early months of the pandemic versus placing priority on waiting for COVID vaccines to be the pandemic salvation. This tradeoff violated key principles and ethics of medicine, and also undermined American democracy. Many nations followed what the US did.

Here is the most important aspect of this strategy. This tradeoff happened despite an enormous amount of data from the US and other nations that pioneering clinicians had found successful early home/outpatient COVID treatments. These were true cures, because they stopped the viral infection in its first viral replication stage. The treatment kept patients with symptoms out of the hospital.

So, another aspect of the tradeoff was that by not supporting early home/outpatient treatment hospitals became crushed by COVID victims that had passed through the first stage into greatly worse symptoms in the second and third stages of the infection. Enormous pain, suffering, deaths and costs were the inevitable consequence of not pushing early home/outpatient treatment and, instead, waiting for COVID vaccines.

Details and data on the considerable positive data on these treatments have been given in my book Pandemic Blunder. A pro-treatment article noted that two leading physicians used ivermectin to treat themselves when they got infected with COVID. One good source of data on early treatment should be promoted for public use.

Despite what many physicians and medical researchers concluded were treatments that cured COVID, others even today have negative views about the two most cheap generic medicines used in many treatment protocols and cocktails, namely hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Data on the treatment success first started to be made public in March 2020, mostly by Dr, V. Zelenko, a frontline community physician in New York.  A number of other clinicians followed through the early months of the pandemic and, even today, keep using both generics with remarkable success. But the mainstream and corporate social media have stubbornly refused to view the treatment “solution” in a positive way. The biggest reason for this refusal to truly follow the science is that under the leadership of Dr. Fauci both NIH and FDA issued guidance blocking wide use of both generics. These actions essentially killed wide use of COVID treatment for the general public as well as health care workers. What happened instead?

Behind the scenes the leading federal officials at NIH, FDA and CDC decided to execute the wait for vaccine strategy and successfully convinced President Trump and his White House pandemic task force to pump billions of dollars into Operation Warp Speed in April 2020.

Dr. Peter McCullough made this important point: “All efforts on treatment were dropped. Warp Speed went full tilt for vaccine development, and there was a silencing of any information on treatment.” He has said that 85 percent of COVID deaths can be prevented with treatment. Back in November 2020, he said “we can prevent hospitalization and death,” and spoke of a crime against humanity because of negative views on early home treatment.

What is critically important to recognize is that out of the current 600,000 COVID deaths in the US over 500,000 could have been prevented with the treatment approach. Globally over 3 million lives could have been saved. This view of preventable deaths was an important conclusion in Pandemic Blunder based on clinical evidence.

Here too, big media has refused to acknowledge what so many experts have said about the enormous missed opportunity to save lives.

In my opinion, any physician who also has a negative view of the treatments based on hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin has either not spent sufficient time examining available data or has fallen victim to the propaganda and disinformation unleashed by big media. The record is clear.  Both generics have many decades of safe use and are fully FDA approved. The websites of three organizations should be used by physicians to access good information on early treatments: Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. America’s Frontline Doctors and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.  People can get hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin through these groups.

Now we are in the COVID vaccine stage with all vaccines being used correctly categorized as experimental.  They are not fully FDA approved but are used under an emergency use designation. Every day in the US and many other countries, there is an endless flow of accounts of vaccine-related deaths and serious negative health impacts. Two websites are good sources of information on vaccine-related impacts: Health Impact News and The COVID Blog that are largely ignored by big media.

Dr. Peter McCullough has recently said that “if this were any other vaccine it would have been pulled from the market by now for safety reasons.” “Based on the safety data now, I can no longer recommend it.  There are over 4,000 dead Americans, there are over 10,000 in Europe that die on days one, two and three after the vaccine,” said McCullough.

This is the reality for the COVID vaccines: As of May 7, there have been 192,954 adverse-event reports associated with COVID vaccines reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS], including 4,057 deaths.  Previous studies, including one from Harvard University, estimate that only 1 to 10 percent of all vaccine-related ill effects get reported to VAERS. In other words, there are probably more people dying from the COVID vaccines than has been reported. Importantly, as to informed consent, people receiving the vaccine are not told about the CDC data, nor are they knowledgeable about serious health impacts globally.

For comparison: There are 20 to 30 deaths reported every year to VAERS related to the flu shot.  That’s with 195 million receiving flu shots, far more than COVID fully vaccinated people to this point.

Dr. Marty Makary, a truth-telling Johns Hopkins physician, has made the point that “natural immunity works” and it is wrong to vilify those who don’t want the vaccine because they have already recovered from the virus. “There is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer,” he emphasized. “We’ve got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them,” Makary said. A professor at the renowned Johns Hopkins School of Medicine recently has said that about 150 million Americans have natural immunity.

In the Fauci wait for the vaccine strategy, access to generics like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had to be choked. The federal stockpile of hydroxychloroquine was not used. The pandemic had to boil and create consumer demand for vaccines, even as enormous numbers of people worldwide died unnecessarily. Fauci and other federal doctors failed their oath to first do no harm, meaning their responsibility to act quickly to treat their patients and avoid hospitalization and possible death.

What was the real driving force for the wait for the vaccine strategy?

The most logical explanation is to follow the money.

Lives lost were necessary to ensure that trillions of dollars would eventually be made by big drug companies – a classic case of profits over people. The pandemic was seen as a marketing bonanza for big drug companies, a global financial opportunity of epic historic proportions. Here is what the public needs to understand: Public health was sacrificed at the altar of corporate greed.

The most charitable interpretation of the strategy is that vaccine proponents envisioned a life-saving pandemic solution eventually.

The key question is whether the majority of Americans would have ever supported the Fauci strategy if they knew about the true costs of trading treatments for vaccines.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.  His newest book is Pandemic Blunder.

COVID-19: If I’m Pregnant, or Hope to Be, Should I Still Get the Jab?

by Jane M. Orient, MD

        If you or someone you love is hoping to have a baby, special caution is needed about any type of medical treatment. 

        The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not giving clear advice. CDC head Rochelle Walensky said at a White House briefing that the “CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” citing a study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). A few days later a CDC spokesperson said the CDC’s guidance for pregnant people had not changed from its March recommendation, which is that “pregnant people are eligible and can receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”

        Authors of the NEJM study stated: “Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.” In a letter to the editor-in-chief, Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D., writes that while 35,691 is a large number of patients, “safety for a majority does NOT guarantee safety in minority subsets of persons at risk and it certainly CANNOT obviate duty to identifiable minority subsets of persons, who are or may be at risk of serious injury or death.”

        Dr. Noorchashm is primarily concerned about persons who have recently had COVID-19 or might currently have an asymptomatic infection.

        The question is especially urgent as some 200 colleges and universities are demanding that students, including women in their prime child-bearing years, be vaccinated before they are allowed to set foot on campus. 

        Dozens of miscarriages after a COVID vaccination have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which captures only a small fraction of events. It has not been shown that the vaccination caused the miscarriage. 

        In addition, there are thousands of reports of menstrual irregularities

        Many tissues of the body have receptors for the “spike” on SARS-CoV2 virus. Studies of placentas from mothers who gave birth after having COVID show that spike protein is localized in the placental villi, the interface between mother and fetus. Will the spike protein that the body manufactures after receiving the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J product attach to the placenta and provoke an auto-immune reaction, jeopardizing present and future pregnancies? We do not know.

        Results of animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been reported, and it is far too early to see long-term effects on human fertility, either male or female.

        For further information:

·         Letter from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) to university officials, urging them to respect the principles of autonomy and informed consent.

·         Summary of reports to VAERS

·         Weekly summaries of reports to British Yellow Card system (scroll down to “vaccine analysis profile”)

·          

        Contact jane@aapsonline.org or (520) 323-3110 if you would like to discuss these issues.

Jane M. Orient, M.D.

Executive Director, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
—