- February 10, 2021
It’s a good bet that most of you reading this were not among the 800 people who attended or watched the all-day Florida Summit on COVID-19 on Nov. 6 at, of all places, the World Equestrian Center in Ocala. You’d rather get a swab stuck up your nose.
But if you did attend or watch, you could not have left that seven-hour summit without being convinced and persuaded.
Convinced that if you have children or grandchildren, you will not let them be vaccinated for COVID-19.
Likewise, you would have been convinced that conquering COVID-19 — not eradicating it — will not come from Washington or Big Pharma. It will come from the grassroots doctors, researchers and experts who are on the front lines of this epic battle, the physicians seeing and treating patients every day.
And if you listened that whole day to the extraordinary doctors who spoke at the summit, you couldn’t help but be persuaded — persuaded to help these front-line COVID-19 warriors in their efforts to let the world know there are other effective ways to treat COVID-19 than only with vaccines.
You would have been convinced that doctors should have the freedom to practice medicine as they see fit for each patient and that these doctors should not be defrocked, fired, ruined and forced to accept a “one size fits all” orthodoxy out of Washington that, in truth, has caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of people in this country unnecessarily, as well as around the world.
There was so much powerful, convincing, persuasive, invaluable information shared at the summit that Americans have not heard — and that they should hear and know.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to cram all of it into this space. So we are sharing with you this week the verbatim comments of two accomplished physician/researchers on what was one of the most forceful messages at the summit: whether to vaccinate children.
This issue is on the verge of exploding into the next major battle in America’s cultural civil war. Indeed, when you deal with children’s health, there will be more than enraged momma bears baring their teeth.
Leading the discussion Saturday on child vaccinations were Drs. Paul Alexander and Peter McCullough. They were two of four speakers who explicitly and unabashedly said: “Do not vaccinate children.”
Alexander and McCullough have been scorned for speaking out against the Washington medical and scientific establishment and accused of spreading misinformation about the vaccines. Baylor University fired McCullough last February, and Alexander earned scorn from Politico for his recommendations during his time as a COVID-19 adviser in the Trump administration.
Even so, McCullough is recognized in medical circles as a leading U.S. cardiologist and epidemiologist. Alexander holds a master’s degree in epidemiology from the University of Toronto, a master’s in evidence-based medicine at Oxford and a doctorate in evidence-based medicine and research methods from McMaster University in Canada and has worked as an epidemiologist for the World Health Organization.
Mind you, the following comments are their side of the story. They are in complete contradiction to what the CDC is saying about the safety of vaccines for children.
But these two accomplished doctors should make you think: Why would they stand in front of 800 people and unabashedly say to not vaccinate children? Here’s why:
As Dr. John Littell of Ocala and one of the organizers of the summit told us: “because no one knows the long-term effects these vaccines will have on children.”
What’s more, these are doctors and researchers who have hands-on evidence that early-treatment regimens are effectively preventing hospitalizations and saving lives.
Read what they say. Do more research. Had you attended the summit, you couldn’t help but be convinced and persuaded.
“Not now, not in the future, no vaccines. Under no condition must we allow this.”
“(I’m going to) touch on research by Ankit Patel that looked at the nasal passages of children, showing children’s nostrils have limited expression of the (cell surface enzyme angiotensin-converting enzyme 2), and that helps explain why partly children have such a low risk of being infected initially and passing on this infection and becoming severely ill.
“Dr. (Robert) Malone hit it out of the park by stating clearly that under no condition must a child be vaccinated with these vaccines. Because children bring near statistical zero risk to the table.
“These vaccines offer only an opportunity for harm and no real opportunity for benefit.
“We looked at all of the data. We’ve been going at this now … for about 15 months solid.
“We’ve looked at all the data on issues around lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates.
“We could find no evidence, none, not one location in this entire world, not one second, I can say and I have published, where lockdowns worked to curb the spread or death, where school closures worked, to where mask mandates worked. In fact, they did the opposite. They pushed the transmission much further.
“So those were very suboptimal approaches, and many people died. Many business owners, many children died because of the lockdowns and school closures.
“We must never allow our public officials, our governments, this type of emergency powers to impose these types of actions.
“I want to focus on kids at risk. There were studies done in Sweden, middle of last year, (that) looked at all of the Swedish kids from 0 to 16, all of the kids going to school. No lockdowns, no mask mandates, nothing. And they found of 2 million children, there were zero instances of death.
“There was a good study in the French Alps, … and they found that one child infected symptomatic, moved around to three different schools, contaminated a bunch of teachers and other kids, 120 close contacts. They followed through contact tracing, and there were no instances of secondary transmission.
“So we had that data for over 15 months. So when Rochelle Walensky (head of the CDC) and (Dr. Anthony) Fauci, etc., come to the podium and state that this is new data coming to their attention now, they are misleading the public and misleading the world.
“They have known for over one year now that children bring near-zero risk to the table. Children don’t readily spread this virus to other children or to adults. We see that the transmission is from adult to child.
“Children don’t get severely ill, and children don’t readily die from this infection. … We are being fed a lot of misleading information constantly.
“I wrote a recent op-ed, and basically the title was ‘We must consider our children today to be vaccinated and fully immune.’
“My thesis was this: If you look at research by Patel, which was limited to two receptors in the nostrils, … work that showed that children have this preactivated, innate immunity that is already primed to respond, … work that also found the B cell responses in children were already primed due to past coronavirus exposure, … work that showed that children’s T cell immunity was very, very positioned to be able to be trained properly and respond to the SARS-V2, … findings at Yale, and their study showed that children’s innate immunity … puts them in a much better position to SARS-V2 in terms of responding, higher levels than adults.
“So my argument was that collectively, children biologically from a molecular point of view have this defense already.
“This is the argument: If children come with a natural protection in their nostrils, I think it’s a very good hypothesis, that if we introduced the vaccine into the deltoid as Dr. Malone was explaining, we have evidence from the Japanese biodistribution study that shows that the contents of the vaccine gets into systemic circulation.
“So we know the content of the vaccine and the spike is getting into the bloodstream.
“… So the question is very simple: If the spike protein — based on all these experts, from what they explain to us, and I have no reason to disbelieve because I’m reading the science carefully— if the spike protein is operating as a pathogen and potentially damages the vasculature and can lead to blood clotting, bleeding, Guillian Barré syndrome, why would we bypass the natural protection that children have in their nostrils?
“Children have been spared by COVID today.
“If we introduce the vaccine into the deltoid, we run the risk of getting spike and content into the system.
“My argument has been — and I have published this — we might run the risk of killing thousands of American children and children across the world with these vaccines.
“… The CDC, the NIH, the FDA and all the vaccine developers are protected by liability protection. The only persons at risk in this are the children.
“So if these agencies bring liability protection to the table and say we are going to remove it, then we should have a conversation.
“But children were at such low risk to begin with. The children are not candidates for these vaccines. Children should be able to ride this out on their own, and they will be fine.
“So I’m saying not now, not in the future, no vaccines. Under no condition must we allow this.”
“Now the menace, particularly over our children, is the vaccine.”
“I just have a few comments to add to what Dr. Alexander said.
“We have millions of children in the U.S. The estimate is the majority of them actually have had COVID-19. Thank goodness. They’ve already been through it.
“Most parents have missed it because it was a drippy nose. It was so mild that the children in a sense have been spared from this plague. And this is absolutely a real blessing.
“Importantly, there are now two analyses that I think everyone should be aware of. One is by Tracy Hoeg from the University of California at Davis. It was published in late August, where she used the VAERS data. She analyzed reports of myocarditis. This is heart inflammation.
“… It’s now known that the vaccine itself from preclinical and clinical observations causes myocarditis. It is not a conjecture. The vaccines cause myocarditis.
“… What does this mean? This means, although it’s rare, that, in fact, it can happen. What Tracy Hoeg showed is it’s more likely for a child to be hospitalized with myocarditis than taking your chance with COVID-19 and having the rare circumstance that a child gets hospitalized with COVID-19.
“And it doesn’t assume anything with respect to treatment. So if we had a child who developed COVID-19 with some mild treatments, easy-to-administer treatments, those with severe symptoms can be spared the hospitalization.
“So the Hoeg analysis was heard on two occasions in September and October by the U.S. FDA, by presenters who are in a sense on our team, among individuals in this room and closely aligned.
“So what I am telling you is our experts know this. Our CDC and FDA know this. They know that children, your children, your grandchildren are more likely to be harmed with the vaccines than they are to be helped in terms of being spared COVID-19 hospitalization and death.
“A second major analysis, published in Toxicology Reports, the title of the paper, ‘Why are we vaccinating children for COVID-19?’
“This analysis dealt with mortality. And across every age group, an individual who took the vaccine, more prominently in the older age groups, was more likely to die after the vaccine than actually take your chances with COVID and ultimately die of COVID.
“I can tell you the application of these data are going to translate. There will be children lost with the vaccines.
“There will be far more children lost with the vaccines than ever having the threat of COVID.
“For the children, we will look back, and we’ll say we were better off before than when the vaccines came in.
“COVID-19 has been a menace for our population, but largely for seniors. Seniors have suffered. … Now the menace, particularly over our children, is the vaccine.
“… Think about the virus, and think about the vaccine. With respect to exposure to the spike protein and how the spike protein basically translates pathogenesis into the human body, in a sense they are one in the same.
“Dose one is the pathogenic respiratory virus. The second dose if people get them are actually spike protein through the vaccine.
“So I agree with Dr. Alexander, and I agree with premises that Dr. Malone has created: Childhood vaccination is off the table.
“Children will not have the ability at age 12 to make their own decisions regarding the potentially fatal administration of an injectable product you cannot get out of the body.
“Do not let a child make a decision at that age.”