data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2bb16/2bb1628e5f1321773825667edf87990f5f3afc7e" alt="5G"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1690a/1690a89fd7414784f903a068a085c58396524e2e" alt=""
Stay Informed with My Patriots Network!
Subscribe to the Newsletter Today: MyPatriotsNetwork.com/Newsletter
Join Our Patriot Movements!
Connect with Patriots for FREE: PatriotsClub.com
Support Constitutional Sheriffs: Learn More at CSPOA.org
Support My Patriots Network by Supporting Our Sponsors
Reclaim Your Health: Visit iWantMyHealthBack.com
Protect Against 5G & EMF Radiation: Learn More at BodyAlign.com
Secure Your Assets with Precious Metals: Get Your Free Kit at BestSilverGold.com
Boost Your Business with AI: Start Now at MastermindWebinars.com
Follow My Patriots Network Everywhere
Sovereign Radio: SovereignRadio.com/MPN
Rumble: Rumble.com/c/MyPatriotsNetwork
YouTube: Youtube.com/@MyPatriotsNetwork
Facebook: Facebook.com/MyPatriotsNetwork
Instagram: Instagram.com/My.Patriots.Network
X (formerly Twitter): X.com/MyPatriots1776
Telegram: t.me/MyPatriotsNetwork
Truth Social: TruthSocial.com/@MyPatriotsNetwork
Summary
Transcript
Okay, welcome everybody. I think recording is on and the YouTube is on. Hopefully the sound is good or somebody will let me know, but I think everything is good. So welcome to another Wednesday webinar. Today is January 29, 2025, and as always, thanks for taking the time out to join me and giving us your feedback and comments and just your interest in what we’re doing. Just a few announcements. So today the new products that we have are apple cider vinegar and fire cider, which is basically apple cider vinegar with a bunch of different herbs like garlic and cayenne and stuff, which a lot of people use the first sign of getting sick.
It’s pretty good stuff. I’ve used it myself. And just to say, so why bother? You know, you can get apple cider vinegar anywhere from Costco. I’ve been in Costco probably in 30 years, but I imagine you can get it there to health food stores and you can make it yourself. What I’m told is that not only is this made from, you know, beyond organic apples, like biodynamically grown apples, but this may be one of the only, if not the only, apple cider vinegar which has never actually been heated at any point in the process. Therefore, it really qualifies as a live fresh food.
Just happens to be in bottles. So it’s great stuff. I encourage everybody to try it. And you can get it, I think, from Dr. Cowan’s garden. We’ll put the link in for that, but I’m pretty sure that’s in the food section. The other thing is, I happen to have, let’s just say, kind of wasted a couple hours this morning listening and watching the Kennedy confirmation hearings. I. I say wasted, even though I’m thinking I’m not sure yet, but I may do something on this next week because the whole thing is beyond shocking. And I think the main reason it’s beyond shocking is I keep saying we live in a scientifically illiterate culture.
And that was just on display in spades. At this hearing. You really get to understand that at no point in any of this, at least three hour hearing that I saw some of, not all of it, at no point was anything of substance discussed. It was basically, I think, what you call grandstanding, which means the senators take the opportunity to expound on their worldview and whatever their world view is, and there’s no information, there’s no real questions, there’s no real answers. There’s just basically one sound bite after another. And I even, which would was I was surprised at, actually felt A little bit bad for Kennedy having to be part of that.
I’m not sure if he liked being part of that, but it was also sort of like a public lynching. And so I may take a look at that. It’s also the other side of it is shocking what he actually said. So there’s both sides of that. If you want to be annoyed and probably waste some time, that’s. You might want to check that out. I’m sure it’s going to be replayed all over the place. Okay. I think that’s all the informational stuff. So the, the other thing that may surprise people in a way is, and I think I’ve said this before is over the last few months I’ve taken to reading, buying and reading both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times at least once a week, sometimes twice a week.
And one could say why would I waste my time and money? And I’d say that’s a good question. I haven’t read a conventional newspaper probably in 40 years before this and don’t watch any sort of so called conventional news programs. I decided to do it, I think for a few reasons. One is for the comedic value because there’s a lot of pretty funny things that you can see in there. The other is to generate stories. You know, I have to have things to push back against. So this helps me to know what is being said in the mainstream.
So I know what to push back against. So that’s the other, I think, reason that I do it. And I can tell you that the main thing that I come away with besides sometimes having a good laugh, but is also a kind of sadness. I don’t know if that’s quite the right word, but something like that to realize just how different I see the world than the papers of record people. The people who write for the papers of record being the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, how they see the world. And that includes the so called news section and the editorial section.
It’s just like they’re from a different world and everything they say just is. Sounds so bizarre and irrational that it’s just even hard to comprehend how it came to this. Such different ways of seeing the world. But anyways, that’s the predominant experience. So this week I. I saw two articles there on the same page. This was from the New York Times National Saturday, January 25 to 2025. Here’s the article. I don’t know if you can read this. It says pediatricians shift tactics to Sway Vaccine Skeptics by Melinda Wenner Moyer. And then the other article that I’m going to talk about a little bit is titled Aluminum in Vaccines is a Good Thing, Scientists say so there you can see that.
And that’s by Teddy Rosenbluth. So why is this important? First of all, I know a little bit from personal experience, but mostly through reading and hearing about it from other doctors that there is a huge push back against so called vaccine hesitancy in pediatric practice. So it’s mainly the pediatricians and the family doctors that give the vaccines to the children and they’re encountering people who are what they call vaccine hesitant. In other words, don’t want to do the vaccines in numbers that they’ve never encountered before. And if we give them the benefit of the doubt that they really think that’s dangerous, then we would say that they are alarmed by this because they think there’s going to end up with epidemics and children dying and getting sick and all the rest of it.
On the the other side of it is there, I think there’s a huge profit motive in this because the pediatricians and family doctors get paid to a certain extent based on the percentage of fully vaccinated children in their practice. So I don’t not trying to ascribe motives to people, that’s always a slippery slope. But for whatever the reason, this is something that’s alarming and therefore they’re using all kind of tactics and learning devices to encourage and help pediatricians learn effective ways to communicate to these vaccine hesitant parents. So nobody ever did something like that. When I was learning and in medical school and in residency, nobody said here’s a learning module or a course or a program or an AI.
We didn’t obviously have AI or even computers to teach you how to effectively talk to somebody who doesn’t want to do what you say. That never came up. You just talked in whatever way you did. But now they’re actually learning or teaching specific language to teach pediatricians the most effective way to convince you might even say bully parents into vaccinating their children. So because of that, I thought it would be a good idea to give you some ideas as to how to talk to your pediatrician. Now I’m going to say up front, I wouldn’t say I’m an expert in this.
And I would also actually say that I’ve never had a chance personally to do this with a pediatrician. We didn’t take our children to any pediatrician ever. We never did any, well, baby visits or any vaccines. And basically I thought then as I do now, that one of the most dangerous places for an otherwise, well, child is a pediatrician’s office. You’re more likely to get injured or suffer adverse consequences or events as a result of seeing a pediatrician or a family doctor than just about anything else you could do besides like, falling off a cliff or something like that.
But that’s a dangerous place to be. And so this is. This is sort of what I’ve developed through talking with families and mothers and just parents and seeing what actually works and what doesn’t. So that’s the reason why I’m doing this, this subject for this webinar. And then if we have time, I’ll get into the thing about aluminum a little bit. So the first thing I would say is, obviously the best way to deal with a pediatrician is not to go. And so if you don’t go, you don’t have the hassle, you don’t have the expense, and you don’t have to get any of the shots.
But obviously, for many people, maybe even most people, they would prefer the parents, that is, that’s the day to have a relationship with a pediatrician on their terms. So that if something happens, you know, if you get a wound or an injury or something falls in your eye and you need to get it out or some, you know, sickness that you don’t know how to deal with, it would be nice to have somebody who you can actually have a relationship with and take them there and feel like you’re on good terms and not be pressured and just say, could you listen to their lungs? Or could you take that thing out of the child’s eye? Or something like that.
So if that’s not the goal, in other words, if you don’t want to have a relationship with the pediatrician and you want to take your chances on urgent cares and ERs, then I don’t think any of this is relevant for you. This is for people who would rather have a pediatrician who they can. I’m not sure what the word is, Have a. Not a. Have some sort of actually professional relationship with. Not to be necessarily on good terms, but have a relationship. So this could be the person that you call on when the situation arises that you can’t deal with yourself or with your friends.
So that’s the reason for doing this. The goal is to not have a confrontation and not to get kicked out of the practice, not to end up hating each other and not being able to work together. The goal is to be able to work together, meaning that you Go on your terms, which means basically don’t go to well visits, don’t have any vaccinations or any other of their so called preventative medicine, but you can still use their practice, use their services when you decide that this is the right time. So that’s the goal here and it’s very important.
If that isn’t the goal, then I don’t think the this way of approaching it will is, is particularly relevant. So I wrote some things down just to so to sort of help me out here. So you’re trying to have a relationship is not the case, then don’t do this. You know, it’s so like I say, if you’re never going to go to this person no matter what, then I wouldn’t bother. Now the first thing I would say is it’s so important how the attitude that you take going into this visit. In fact I would say that that’s everything.
And so the first rule I would say is it is not the goal of this to convince this doctor or nurse practitioner or PA or whoever it is of anything. I would totally eradicate that idea or that thought or even that hope from your thinking. That is not the goal. The goal is only to allow the relationship to continue so that they could take something out of your eye or sew up a cut or listen to your lungs, or order a urine test if you need to. Therefore, the first step I would take is you cannot go into this encounter with any fear.
You should realize that no matter what they threaten you with, and you will of course know and realize that this may be a very threatening personally and professionally to this person, this provider, no matter what they respond, no matter what threat they make at that visit, they can’t do anything to you. They can’t force you to do anything. They can’t force you to get an injection, they can’t force you to do any test. They can’t take your child away at that visit. They can threaten and they can even maybe initiate things. But at that particular visit, there’s nothing that they can do to prevent you from leaving that office with your child intact.
And there are things you can do to prevent, you know, the child protective services and actually we’re going to go over that at some later time because some of the doctors in our new biology clinic actually have some experience with that. So you have clear, effective options for any threat that they, they try to throw at you. So therefore you can safely go into this with the decision that you’re not going to do anything different than what you set out to do at that visit and that you have no fear at that particular visit, no matter what they say, no matter what threat you’re here as to any adverse consequence or that you’re not going to be able to leave that office with your child intact.
So that’s the first thing. No fear the second thing. And one of my favorite movies of all time was I think called the Mask of Zorro with Anthony Hopkins. And there was a lot of quotes in there that I’ve remembered. And one of them was as he was teaching the old Zorro, was teaching the new Zorro, he said, never attack out of anger. And I would say that that advice also applies in this case. You cannot go into this encounter angry. And angry also means that you’re going to try to convince them or you’re going to be angry if they don’t believe you or do what you say or agree with you or anything like that.
No matter what they say, there’s no reason to be angry. You already know that their intention is to manipulate you in any way possible in order to get the shots and do the whole program that they lay out. You already know that that is not an option. You know one of the first rules of being on your child’s side is no vaccines ever. There’s none of them that are safe, effective, worthwhile doing ever. So that’s not an option. You don’t have to fear doing that. They will say things because they’re learning how to trigger you and how to use even empathy and how to so called empathize with your concerns and you can hear all that and acknowledge it and you can respond just clear headed, calmly.
Thank you very much for sharing. You don’t have to get angry. You already know that that’s the goal that they have. So there’s nothing to get angry about. The fourth thing, as I think I already said, you’re not going to make any decisions no matter what you hear, no matter how convincing the argument that they make. You’ve already done your homework and you’ve made the decision that you’re not going to do their childhood vaccines and their well, visits and their testing and all the rest of it. And at that encounter, you’re for under no circumstances going to change your mind no matter what you hear.
I’m not saying you don’t hear what they say. And you could take that into account and you could decide somehow later, after you look into it, that this or that thing they say may be something that you can go along with. I Doubt it, but that could happen. But in any case, you don’t make the decision right then. So that’s number four. Number five is, and this is, I think, very important in many of these conversations is the. And this may be difficult, and it may be even something that you may have to practice with friends or your spouse or other members of your family.
You may want to do some dry runs of this to go over the strategy of how to have this conversation. But it’s similar to the attitude of a, quote, scientist that you are the one directing the conversation. You are the one asking the questions. You never make claims yourself. You’re trying to identify the claims that they are making and then to verify whether they’re true or not or how they came up with that claim. So under no circumstances do you say, answer the question, well, if you don’t think measles is caused by a virus, then what causes measles? That has nothing to do with the question of whether measles is a specific disease or is caused by a virus.
And you’re not under any circumstances going to answer that question. They have certain claims, and those claims are the basis of their interventions and their vaccine programs. And you’re only there to connect about. Can you convince me, if that’s the, the word to use, that you, you have clear scientific evidence for the claims that you are making. So the other reason for this is, and the reason that it’s important for you to gain control of the conversation, meaning you need to get to direct the conversation so that you’re getting your questions answered. If you don’t, you will be subjected to 20, 30, 40 minutes of a canned lecture on how they’re on your side and caring for the child.
And vaccines are safe and effective and pediatricians have saved the world for, and prevented hundreds of millions of deaths. And you will just be a useless and boring and tedious half an hour listening to a canned talk of somebody who’s essentially gotten coaching on how to talk to their patients. You don’t want to do that. You want to say just politely and clearly and without confrontation. So I think that the best use of this time would be if you could answer some of my questions. That way I can really, that will help me take a look at some of the reasons why I’ve made the decisions.
And I wonder if you would be willing to help me with your understanding to answer some of these questions which I’ve come up with. So that’s the attitude that you go into it, and so you come in without any Fear and without any anger, knowing that the goal is to continue the relationship and, and then you take control of the conversation. You don’t listen to any canned 30 minute speeches because that will probably lead nowhere. And you just say politely with, respectfully, can I ask you some questions that have been things that I’ve looked into that would help me come to make a decision and whether they do that or not, you’ll see.
But I think most people would, most of the providers would agree to try to answer your questions. So now you’re in control of the situation and you’re investigating their claims. So the next thing I would do is say, you know, I think we should start at the beginning because the whole vaccine question revolves around contagion and the fact of sick people making, well, people sick. And I’ve done some looking into that and I’ve actually read some books and read some studies and I would actually think you might want to even come in with the book can you catch a cold by Daniel Reuters and actually give that to them and say, you know, it’s confusing for me because I’ve looked into this and this study going back even to early 1900 and then continuing right up to the present day and all the studies are referenced in this book.
They, they are unable to come up with a single study that shows that what we call communicable diseases, infectious diseases, are actually happen the way they think and that sick people actually make, well, people sick. I know that’s something that we think we all experience, but when they actually look at it scientifically that turns out not to be the case. I was actually surprised to hear this because I thought I had experience otherwise. And so I’d like to leave you with this book and I wonder if you could provide me with two studies that show me that actually sick people do make, well, people sick.
And that way I could look at them and look at the studies and how they did it and that would get us on sort of sound and equal footing that we would be on the same page. And I expect that they would say, well there’s, everybody knows that there’s thousands of studies that show that diseases are communicated between people and between animals and even plants. And I’ve seen hundreds of these studies myself. This is ridiculous. This is a scientific fact. Of course there are studies. And you say, well it should be easy for you to come up with two.
So maybe after we leave here you could send them and I’ll give you my contact information and you could email me those studies and then when we get back together again, we can talk about whether these studies prove it. Because as I said, this is kind of surprising to me, and I thought you would be able to clear it up. And I think that that would be a good place to leave it. The. The first question. So they know they have a clear directive as to what they need to do, which should be easy enough. They said there’s hundreds, so all they have to do is find one or two, send it to you, and that would be the end of it.
What will, of course happen is they won’t actually be able to find any such studies because there aren’t any. And they will probably then realize that they probably should leave you alone with this. That’s. That’s what we’re hoping for, that. Okay, well, I can. I don’t want to tangle with this person. But anyways, I’ll just leave it and we’ll just agree to disagree and I won’t look into it, and that’s the end of it. But there probably would be more time. And then you say, so let’s move on here, you know, because like I say, I’ve done some looking into this and I’ve been reading a bunch of stuff, and I’m just wondering if we could go over.
Because a lot of the vaccines are, of course, based on the fact that there’s these different viruses, chickenpox virus and measles virus and mumps virus and flu viruses and rotavirus and. And, you know, all the rest of them. So I think we, again, if we could just start at the beginning. And again, their tone should be respectful and without any accusations or anger or fear. Just start at the beginning, you know, because I’m sure you learned this. So how does a virologist actually prove the existence of a virus, say chickenpox or measles, and show that it causes disease? Because I’ve looked at this and found it’s not clear to me how this all works.
So I think what you’ll get is. Because what you’ll get is an attempt to. They will, at this point, then start to realize that this conversation is not going the way that they thought it should or that their AI or learning module told them that they didn’t. They weren’t meant to be answering questions like this. They were. They were supposed to tell you about how safe and effective and how many millions of lives and not actually get into the basic science. But if you keep bringing it back to this and just say, just let. Just tell me, because, you know, I’m confused about how they do this.
And then I think what they’ll say is eventually, either this is not my field, I’m not a virologist, or I don’t know how they do this, or of course I know, but it’s too complicated to, to tell you. But what you’ll see is that they don’t know. And they will have to be confronted with the fact that they don’t know the basics of their own field or the basics of the philosophy of vaccination. And I wouldn’t like throw that in anybody’s face. Just say, well, I’ve, you know, I’ve read about how they make these vaccines and it seems to have a lot to do with how they find the viruses.
So I’m wondering if I could just read you a section and see if, if this is what your understanding of how a virologist actually finds a virus, shows that it causes disease and actually makes the vaccine. Because my next question was going to be, so how do they actually make like a live viral vaccine? Because I think it’s important to know that. So I know what all the ingredients are and how the process was just like I would do with any other thing or, you know, that I was buying. I would want to know how it was made and what’s in it.
And I’m sure you know this, so if you could please tell me. And again, they won’t be able to do that. They may say things like, well, we do a test like a PCR or an antigen or an antibody, and you could say, well, that all presupposes that they have a virus in the first place. So I’d still love to go back to the beginning and see how that is, that they actually found, isolated, purified this virus. So they know that that piece of RNA or DNA actually came from this virus or the antigen came from that virus or the antibody.
And again, they wouldn’t be expected, they wouldn’t be expecting to know this and you would again still be in control of the questioning process. And if you hadn’t been thrown out of the office, then with, well, this is all settled science and the virologists have been doing this and we’ve known this for, for 100 years. And it’s inappropriate for you to criticize this or it’s not for laymen to understand. And sometimes you have to listen to the experts and there we have a consensus and I’m not a virologist and blah, blah, blah, and all that you hear with just kind of impassioned look, or dispassionate look I think is the better word.
And you don’t react and you don’t get angry and you don’t try to contradict them except at the end just say, well, let’s go back and see. You know, because you say it’s a. We do a PCR on a measles virus, so what is the PCR measure? So again, you’re just keep asking them foundational questions which you of course know the answer to and they don’t. And so what I think will happen then is you will then come to an impasse and they will realize that their sort of canned speech didn’t, didn’t actually do you any good and, or do do them any good because you kept asking for foundational questions, which is, I think anybody would have to agree, is actually appropriate because it’s these foundational issues which are the obvious foundation of the whole vaccine, you know, theory.
And they should be able to be simply elucidated. They should be understood by the provider and then you. And it should be clear to them that they should be able to give you that information. And I think it will be difficult for them to dismiss that as an inappropriate line of questioning because it’s obviously germane to the topic. Finally then I would say, well, it seems like we still have a, not a quite a full understanding of how this whole viral theory and how they find a virus and prove that it causes disease and what these tests actually mean.
So let’s just hold that for now and say, can you at least tell me what the ingredients of a vaccine are? Maybe we could look at the package insert and so they will may or may not do that. And then they will come to aluminum. And then you say, you know, I happen to read this article in the New York Times that says that, that vaccines are completely safe. And could you, you know, walk me through how we know that? So let’s start with why do they put a vaccine in. In the first. Sorry, why do they put aluminum in vaccines in the first place? Now they will probably say, vaccine, aluminum is an adjuvant.
So you say, what’s an adjuvant? An adjuvant means a helper. So what is it helping? Again, you’re in control of the questions and you’re in control of the conversation. There’s no fear, there’s no anger, there’s just a connection through the simple asking the questions to clarify the conversation. So what is an adjuvant? An adjuvant is a substance that’s put into A vaccine in order to make the immune system more active, more effective. So how does that work? Well, we don’t know exactly how it works, but you put in this aluminum and it’s mixed with some other things and that creates a stronger antibody response.
So then you might say, well, you know, I’ve actually taken a look at aluminum and I’ve looked at the work of a guy named Chris Exley. He’s a professor somewhere in England and he spent his career looking at aluminum. And I have some. Some quotes from his studies, which I would like to share and see if you could tell me what you think of these. So let me just take. Get some of the. So this is just one of his papers, and it’s called Aluminum hydroxy phosphate sulfate and the HPV VACC evil by any other name.
And you can go to Chris Exley’s website, which is where I got this, and you can find the paper, and they’re all links to different published papers. So you say neither the. Because if you read this article in the New York Times, it will basically tell you that the amount of aluminum in there is very safe because it’s way less than we get from eating aluminum and even breathing aluminum, and all the exogenous exposure to aluminum, mostly through eating it, it’s far less what’s in the vaccine. So there’s no possibility that this could cause a problem.
But interestingly, why do they put the aluminum in? They put it in to act as an irritant, essentially a poison to get your body to react to it in the hope that when your body reacts to get rid of this injected poison, that it will also react against the antigens that came from the, quote, virus or bacteria or toxin. So in other words, an adjuvant is a poison that they put into the vaccine to make your reaction to it stronger in the hopes that the reaction will be directed not against your own tissues or against the aluminum, but against the antigens, I.e.
the proteins or the part of the virus that they’ve also put into the vaccine at the same time. So what does he say about it? So neither the FDA nor the ema, I think that’s the European measure, the aluminum content of vaccines. They wholly rely on information provided to them by the manufacturer. So you can see, for example, a paper that proves that the role of the aluminum adjuvant, that’s an adjuvant, means a helper, is to trick the body into thinking that it’s under attack from a foreign substance, such as a bacterium or virus. In other words, Again, it’s a poison.
That is an antigen adjuvant, sorry, that that makes the body think it’s under attack from a foreign substance. And since a part of the bacteria, or allegedly the virus is in the same vial, it will also react to that. However, dead antigens are actually quite expensive as they have to be manufactured, for example, in a chicken egg and process to be suitable thereafter for an injection in a vaccine. Creating vaccines that have included sufficiently large amount of dead antigen would invariably make the vaccine uneconomic. It would also make the vaccine much more difficult to manufacture and bring.
To market. In other words, when you start, when you really understand how they make these antigens, which is basically taking, you know, material from a sick person and putting it in a culture and putting in antibiotics and taking away the food and then adding, you know, horse serum or fetal bovine serum and then seeing it break down, that’s what’s called a live viral vaccine. And when they take some of the proteins, that is the antigens, out of that mess, that’s called a inactive or dead vaccine. And so that process of culturing is expensive, and so they want to use as little of those proteins as possible.
So then we get to the next paragraph. So. So the aluminum adjutants are the vaccine manufacturer’s dirty little secret, their answer to the expense and inconvenience of dead vaccines while also avoiding the many potential complications of using live vaccines. In other words, it’s trickier to just inject this cell culture into somebody because they get, like, really sick. So they’d rather just take some proteins out, but that jacks up the cost of the manufacturing to get the proteins. And so when you inject just the proteins, you get no, quote, antibody response because it’s not very active. So you have to mix it with even more poisons, that is aluminum, to get a reaction that then creates this antibody response, which is what you’re looking for.
That’s what he’s saying here. So they’ve colluded with the aluminum industry in suggesting that aluminum salts, uses, adjuvants and vaccine are benign with absolutely no health or safety implications whatsoever, do they really expect others to accept such nonsense? If aluminum adjuvants are so benign, why do they work? If they are so benign, why does the repeated use of aluminum adjuvants as placebos in vaccine clinical trials result in a myriad serious adverse event in vaccine recipients? And he gives an example. So to deconstruct that paragraph, in other words, they say, and this article in the New York Times and your pediatrician will say that the aluminum adjuvants are safe and, and they’ve been studied to be safe.
If that’s the case, how are they so effective in creating this toxic antibodies response in people? And the more aluminum you give, the more antibody that is toxic response you will give. And why is it that there is these studies that show that they typically test the vaccines with the antigens and then the placebo is the same components except not the antigens. In other words, the aluminum adjuvant is in the placebo and they still get a myriad of serious side effects. In fact, I happen to know with gardasil they got 2.3% so called autoimmune disease, which means you created a serious toxic situation in the, in the girls who got the vaccine, with the Gardasil vaccine, including the aluminum and the antigens, the proteins, and they got the exact same 2.3% of so called autoimmune disease that is toxic reactions in the placebo which just had the aluminum adjuvant which tells you that it’s the aluminum adjuvant which is the primary driver of this toxic reaction.
Particularly because Merck also did a study, very small study, and I think somebody at Merck must have gone rogue where they took about 100 girls and they gave them just saline and they had no, no 0% incidence of so called autoimmune disease. So in other words, they proved scientifically that it was the aluminum adjuvants or the other adjuvants, not that the proteins are so good for you, but that they were not the primary driver of this toxic reaction. Again, you don’t have to know all this to talk to your pediatrician, but you could give him this paper, which you can, hopefully we can make it available to you and ask them if they could go through some of these questions that some of the aluminum researchers had and clear this up.
So aluminum adjuvants are only effective because they induce acute cytotoxicity at the site and there’s a paper, in other words, they poison you and therefore they cause a reaction. Merck’s choice of AAHs, which is a type of aluminum, over other commercially available aluminum adjuvants, is wholly economical. At some point in Merck’s history of using aluminum adjuvants in the manufacture of vaccines, they probably inadvertently created an aluminum adjuvant that was consistently more potent than either aluminum oxy hydroxide or aluminum hydroxyphosphate. The bucket chemistry of aluminum adjuvant manufacture lends itself easily to such an explanation of how they began to use AAHs.
By using AAHs, they found they were able to use dead antigens with lower potency and importantly, significantly less amounts of such adjuvants. Antigens per vaccine injection. It is a critical consideration that the antigen is the only expensive part of a vaccine. Costs cannot be cut elsewhere. So any reduction in the cost of the antigen per vaccine is a considerable increase in profit per vaccine. In other words, it’s the antigens from the quote, dead bacteria or the imaginary virus that are the expensive part. So what they did was they found a more toxic form of aluminum. They increased the level of that in the vaccine.
They could therefore reduce the amount of antigen and still get a toxic reaction and show that there was antibodies made. And so they were able to sell their product at a higher profit margin. So I know that Merck is well aware of the toxicity of their adjuvant. I’m not saying that they understand why it is so toxic, but their actions in ensuring that it is not independently tested for safety prove this point. They are, of course, not alone in this respect, as there have not been any clinical trials to assess adequately the safety of aluminum adjuvants used in human vaccination.
So here I would just ask the pediatrician if you can get to this level or if you can give him this paper, does he have any clinical trials that actually prove the safety of injected aluminum, not just exposure to oral lumen, oral aluminum, which we know doesn’t get absorbed, or even, you know, topical aluminum, which we also know doesn’t get absorbed? So then he finishes. I built my scientific reputation on a detailed understanding of the bio inorganic chemistry of aluminum. And you can go to the 200 published papers on this. So I’m not saying that you would get this far, but you at least yourself know the story about aluminum.
And so you can just say, well, I have this paper and it goes through some of the problems of aluminum and some of the history. I wonder if you could send me a paper showing the safety of aluminum as used as adjuvants. And I think by then you would either have been kicked out or out of time, but you would probably have gotten the point across that you are somebody who’s very serious and have looked into this and can have a calm, measured, actually scientific conversation based on facts and that you’re hoping they do the same and that you’re not trying to base this on emotions or bullying people, but just that you share the goal of what’s best for your child.
And then you can finish by saying Just so that we’re clear and how to move forward. I would love to see two contagion studies, two papers showing the isolation and purification of viruses and showing that they cause disease, and then two papers showing the safety of injected aluminum. Once I see that, I would have way more confidence in your recommendations for your vaccine program and to comply and to follow up with the well child visits as you suggested. And I’m hoping you can get these to me as soon as possible. You can send them to this address.
And my strong suspicion is you will a not be kicked out of the practice. You will still be able to use them for emergency services and you will never hear anything about any of these studies because they simply don’t exist. And that was the goal of this encounter. Not to convince them, but only to have a rational, logical, adult conversation where you are controlling the questions, you are controlling the conversation. And that it would be clear to this provider that this is not something that they can possibly engage with because they don’t even know how to find studies like this or know what to do with it.
And so the best thing for them is to leave it alone, hope you don’t come back, but not actually go to the step of kicking you out of the practice because they probably would be leery of getting involved with you to that extent and that would accomplish your goals. I also, as I said in the beginning, you may want to practice this with family members, even have people take on a kind of antagonistic role and know that, that a lot of their tactics will be to use emotions to shame you or don’t you want to protect your child or whatever.
You can just hear those. There’s no anger, there’s no fear, they can’t do anything to you. Right then we’re going to eventually talk about ways of work, you know, dealing with protective services or whatever else comes at your way. They can’t make you do anything. And so you have nothing to fear from this encounter. And hopefully you will walk away with it with somebody who you can use in an emergency, who you just agree to disagree and go away like that. So I hope this was helpful. I hope that if anybody does it, they can share with us, maybe give us some feedback on how it worked and whether you actually got thrown out.
I think what it means is you’re going into it with the right attitude and with armed with enough knowledge to hold your own and with the idea that they’re the ones who have to answer your questions, that you’re the one paying them. And hopefully it will all go well. So again, let us know, and thanks for listening.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2bb16/2bb1628e5f1321773825667edf87990f5f3afc7e" alt="5G"