Posted on 02/03/2021 8:12:57 AM PST by SeekAndFind
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) recently published a white paper that is the first objective look at the experimental vaccines that are now being enthusiastically offered to the public on an ever-increasing scale.
They are the group that advocated for the safety of the very well-known, long-studied and widely-used drug hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 during the summer of 2020, holding a well-publicized press conference in Washington, D.C. They were, of course, immediately attacked and almost entirely silenced for their efforts because hydroxychloroquine had been touted by President Trump as an effective treatment against Covid-19.
A few key highlights from the paper: First, all three vaccine candidates -- from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna -- are still experimental and investigational. Pfizer, in its own executive summary to the FDA on December 10, 2020 calls it “...an investigational Covid-19 vaccine.”
The experimental vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna utilize mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) which instructs the body’s cells on manufacturing proteins. It is technology that has not “ever been approved for any disease, or even entered final-stage trials until now.” There have been no independently published animal studies on any of the vaccines, and it is not yet known what effects they will have on the elderly, the very young, or women who are pregnant or might become pregnant in the near future. I’d say those are important groups whose safety is critical.
The white paper speaks extensively about Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) as a well-known complication of vaccines that can result in a making the disease worse if contracted. It also goes into somewhat frightening detail about the possibility that the mRNA vaccines “may permanently interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain a pregnancy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Funny the vaxxers will ask for mountains of proof about vitamin C as a potent antiviral, but they’ll squeal that it is unethical to run a double blind test of fully vaxxed vs fully un-vaxxed children.
Even the individual vaccines are not tested vs nothing. They use the adjuvants or another vaccine as placebo. They’re scum. And dollars to donuts, they’ll tell you they are against govt mandating vax, but have no problem with a defacto mandate is businesses everywhere mandate them.
RE: I’m not signing up to read their paper and I don’t waste my time watching video.
Well, then you are in no position to judge the contents of their paper based on what was written by a hostile publication. Read the paper and critic the contents. It is NOT a paper that is an anti-vaccine paper. It is a paper that seeks to inform. You would be more credible if you read it and pointed out WHERE the misinformations are.
RE: HCL has helped in certain instances and in certain patients but it is misleading to convince people that they can rely upon HCL instead of getting the vaccine.
The doctors never advocate COERCION. If you do not want it, don’t take it. No one, not these doctors are forcing you or anyone to.
What they are against is suppression of information and BANNING the prescription of it outright.
What they are for is FREEDOM. Give Physicians the freedom to prescribe for patients the best treatment they see fit. I’m sure you can at least agree on this.
RE: Has she published affidavits, or other verified statements, preferably made under oath, something that could be used in court proceedings or must we just rely upon her word?
Why? Is she being sued in court? Why should she testify under oath. I’m sure if there was a senate panel asking her to do so under oath, she’d be willing to come and testify.
Just like Dr. Pierre Kory did for Ivermectin.
SeekAndFind wrote: “Why? Is she being sued in court? Why should she testify under oath. I’m sure if there was a senate panel asking her to do so under oath, she’d be willing to come and testify.”
So, all we have is her personal statements? Why should we believe her?
RE: So, all we have is her personal statements? Why should we believe her?
Because it is NOT ONLY her statements.
She has scores of other doctors willing to testify. There are doctors like Vladimir Zelenko, Physicians from all over the country, a Yale Epidemiologist, and results of studies in journals like the one I presented above from the American Journal of Medicine to back up her claims.
We have a black Michigan state DEMOCRAT legislator who was saved from the brink of a CoVid-19 death due to taking HCQ. She even went to the White House to personally thank Trump for making HCQ known to the public, risking censure from her own party.
And you have not addressed my issue — FREEDOM OF CHOICE! What’s your problem with that? I assume that your being here in this forum means that you are a supporter of individual liberty, or am I wrong in my assumption?
Not surprised.
Lot of otherwise conservative friends are terrified of not following conventional medicine. It makes it a bit of a challenge for me to set up a medical POA, because in it I have specified what I do not want, but I doubt that I can trust my own family to carry out my wishes, let alone friends...
“What they are for is FREEDOM. Give Physicians the freedom to prescribe for patients the best treatment they see fit. IâÂÂm sure you can at least agree on”
I have known otherwise conservative MDs who absolutely do not believe in medical freedom, absolutely believe that other modes of health care should be restricted, absolutely have no problem with the star chamber proceedings vs “rebel” MDs at State medical boards, no problem with legislatures obliterating conscience vaxx exemptions, and no problem with hospitals filing for temporary guardianship of children when parents want to explore other modes of treatment for their child.
It is unfortunate that health freedoms were not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but there you have it. We could argue they are 9th amendment freedoms, but I don’t think we would prevail...
SeekAndFind wrote: “And you have not addressed my issue — FREEDOM OF CHOICE! What’s your problem with that? I assume that your being here in this forum means that you are a supporter of individual liberty, or am I wrong in my assumption?”
My issue with ‘freedom of choice’ begins when it starts to impact upon my freedoms. If groups like AFLD can sow enough misinformation about the vaccines that discourages the achievement of herd immunity, then my freedoms have been impacted.
HCL isn’t a panacea. HCL will not save us from the virus. The vaccines are the only viable solution to this problem. The anti-vaxxer movement is redolent with propaganda, misinformation, and downright deception. It will cost thousands of lives and will keep us in lockdowns, mask wearing, school closures, etc,.
RE: My issue with ‘freedom of choice’ begins when it starts to impact upon my freedoms. If groups like AFLD can sow enough misinformation about the vaccines that discourages the achievement of herd immunity, then my freedoms have been impacted.
Firstly, You said you have not read their White Paper, only a third party critique of it. How then do you know that they are sowing disinformation?
Secondly, Your attitude is no different from Twitter or Facebook when they call all information being presented about Hunter Biden and Election Fraud misinformation. Let me paraphrase what you wrote above by replacing the attitudes of these big tech companies:
“If groups like the New York Post or Parler or Gab can sow enough misinformation about the elections or Joe Biden’s relationship with China, that discourages the achievement of the election of the President, then my freedoms have been impacted because I get the government that I don’t want.” <— Exactly the same attitude, just different ideas.
3) The best remedy against bad speech and disinformation is MORE SPEECH and BETTER INFORMATION, not banning of speech. If you believe that the current vaccines are the better solution to this pandemic and you believe that these doctors are sowing disinformation, POINT THEM OUT SCIENTIFICALLY and SHOW US WHERE THEIR SCIENCE IS DEFECTIVE. Don’t censor them. Censoring only rings suspicion that you have something to hide and only encourages more conspiracy theories.
RE: HCL isn’t a panacea. HCL will not save us from the virus
The doctors NEVER claimed that it was a panacea if you read what they wrote ( not even Vladimir Zelenko, who has healed nearly a thousand patients with HCQ claims that ). However, it IS an effective drug, especially when used EARLY in the disease cycle, which should be used as part of our arsenal of weapons against the virus. Why is there SUPPRESSSION of the doctor’s attempts to get their information out?
RE: The anti-vaxxer movement is redolent with propaganda, misinformation, and downright deception. It will cost thousands of lives and will keep us in lockdowns, mask wearing, school closures, etc,.
You did not even read their White Paper and you give us this? How do you expect me to give you credibility.
The point of the white paper is *not* ( Repeat, *NOT*) to say that people shouldn’t get the shots; it is merely to inform people of the reality of the situation, such as the possibility that the vaccines can still cause spread of the virus via asymptomatic carriers ( if you disagree with this, then the onus is on you to tell us where this is wrong SCIENTIFICALLY ).
The Frontline doctors are telling us that Those vaccinated may think it is safe to be around others when it actually isn’t. People should be given all the facts before making a decision for themselves or their families.
Finally, you might disagree with this because you seem to believe that vaccines are the way to achieve herd immunity ( you were the one who mentioned this term, not me ).
From the article, it says that the Frontline Doctors are also circulating a petition against the possible future mandating of the vaccine. Rumors have been spreading that there may come a time when employers, schools, airlines, and even concert venues may require proof of vaccination, which would be illegal on many levels, not the least of which is the access by third parties to people’s private medical data. What happened to “my body, my choice?”
So let me ask you this — In the name of HERD IMMUNITY, do you disagree with the stance of these doctors and insist that everyone be FORCED into taking the vaccine?
A simple yes/no answer will suffice.
This whole Wuhanflu event is taking on a religious fervor: the virtuous mask wearing, the judgmental edicts and now baptism with a vaccine and an official heretic.
Children to be vaccinated this summer, per High Priest Fauci?
RE: It is unfortunate that health freedoms were not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but there you have it. We could argue they are 9th amendment freedoms, but I don’t think we would prevail...
We should FIGHT even if we do not prevail.
I believe in Patrick Henry’s motto: GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
A mandate to vaccinate will only backfire.
A universal mandate may make the problems facing broad acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines even worse than they are now. A recent Gallup poll shows that more than a third of Americans (INCLUDING HEALTH CARE WORKERS AND PHYSICIANS ) would refuse a free, FDA-approved vaccine if it was ready today.
Mistrust is, of course, a grave threat to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. While this is fueled in part by misinformation from the usual anti-vaccine suspects, there is also deep concern and skepticism about the unusually accelerated timetable of the U.S. government’s “Operation Warp Speed”.
The reality is that most broadly applicable mandates, unless accompanied by self-enforcement mechanisms, need some buy-in and compliance to work well. A universal vaccine mandate in the face of widespread mistrust would raise real enforcement problems.
Moreover, going to mandates without transparent efforts to educate the public is a shortcut to suppressing vaccine safety concerns, and will breed even stronger resistance. SUPPRESSING those who oppose it as sowing disinformation instead of countering what they say with SCIENCE will make matters worst.
Rather than immediately reaching for mandates, the first response to concerns should be to increase transparency as much as possible. We should be public and vocal about the ways the existing oversight process is conducted and monitored.
There are also legal barriers. A universal vaccine mandate for adults has never been imposed in the United States IN PREVIOUS PANDEMICS, and a COVID-19 vaccine mandate would almost certainly be challenged in court.
Plus, it is doubtful that the federal government has the authority to impose one. (And it is not clear states do, either.) Not least, the litigation would provide anti-vaccine groups with an additional forum in which to query vaccine safety, as well as its legality.
If these MD’s you mentioned do not believe in medical freedom, then the term “conservative” does not consistently apply to them.
I heard that as well. Nope, not going to happen. I would like to know how provax freepers feel about making this cv19 vax mandatory. Will some of you risk your professions to resist?
For me: no vaxx when there are effective natural therapeutics, like this:
SeekAndFind wrote: “Firstly, You said you have not read their White Paper, only a third party critique of it. How then do you know that they are sowing disinformation?”
As I said previously, I’m not registering in order to read their paper. Nor am I going to waste my time watching their video. BTW, I don’t watch videos regardless of their source.
SeekAndFind wrote: “The doctors NEVER claimed that it was a panacea if you read what they wrote ( not even Vladimir Zelenko, who has healed nearly a thousand patients with HCQ claims that ). However, it IS an effective drug, especially when used EARLY in the disease cycle, which should be used as part of our arsenal of weapons against the virus. Why is there SUPPRESSSION of the doctor’s attempts to get their information out?”
You do realize their comments about the vaccines is a mirror of those comments about HCL which you condemn?
SeekAndFind wrote: “So let me ask you this — In the name of HERD IMMUNITY, do you disagree with the stance of these doctors and insist that everyone be FORCED into taking the vaccine?”
Strawman. No one has mandated that you take the vaccine. If you wish, you may refuse.
SeekAndFind wrote: “However, it IS an effective drug, especially when used EARLY in the disease cycle, which should be used as part of our arsenal of weapons against the virus. Why is there SUPPRESSSION of the doctor’s attempts to get their information out?”
FWIW, I’ve never been against HCL. My issue is this. It’s only effective in select cases IIRC, some reports are perhaps 25% while the vaccine effectiveness approaches 95%. Avoiding the vaccine and relying upon HCL seems rather like locking the barn after the horse has left.
RE: It’s only effective in select cases IIRC, some reports are perhaps 25% while the vaccine effectiveness approaches 95%
There is too much suppression of data from HCQ (also downright FRAUD as shown by the now withdrawn Lancet study ) that we do not know the true extent of its effectivity. That 25% is doubtful even. Dr. Zelenko insists that you must use it at the early cycle of disease, not when the patient is intubated and it has to be used with ZINC, not HCQ by itself. His repeated emphasis is this - HCQ is the gun, but Zinc is the bullet to make it the potent weapon. You can’t have one without the other. Dr. Zelenko’s experiences with his patients ( over a thousand now by his count ) shows effectivity and recoveries equal to or exceeding those of vaccine percentages with the added bonus that it only costs a few dollars for the complete treatment protocol.
I have never been against vaccines either. But you have to know the possible side effects of vaccines, especially on certain types of people, and we DO NEED people who can publicly tell people about the risks they’re taking vs. the benefits.
And here’s my point - THERE SHOULD BE NO SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH. If you disagree with anyone and believe they are spreading misinformation DO NOT CENSOR THEM, Refute them with science PUBLICLY. That is the only way for the public to know the truth.
RE: As I said previously, I’m not registering in order to read their paper. Nor am I going to waste my time watching their video. BTW, I don’t watch videos regardless of their source.
Then my response is the same as before - you are in no position to critique their White paper. You only have credibility if you refute the points raised in their paper.
RE: You do realize their comments about the vaccines is a mirror of those comments about HCL which you condemn?
Well, if so, what’s the problem? REFUTE THEM WITH SCIENCE. Nobody is suppressing criticisms against HCQ, why does the government and big tech suppress and censor the information they present against vaccines?
What’s good for one should be good for the other.
RE: Strawman. No one has mandated that you take the vaccine. If you wish, you may refuse.
NOT A STRAWMAN.
1) I am asking a question, not saying that you are for or against it. My response to you was dependent on how you answer my question.
The fact that no one has mandated anything YET, does not mean that it won’t be done in the future in the name of “Herd Immunity”. We already have people in power who are contemplating this.
2) You said if I wish, I may refuse. I gather then that you are FOR people being free to choose whether to accept it or reject it. If so, then we agree on this.
The best “trial” we can have is to compare the data of people :
A) Taking the vaccine.
B) Not Taking the vaccine
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.