America's Frontline Doctors on the COVID vaccines: 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.

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.”

SeekAndFind wrote: “There is too much suppression of data from HCQ (also downright FRAUD as shown by the now withdrawn Lancet study ) that we do not know the true extent of its effectivity.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.”

You don’t dispute that the vaccine is far more effective than a HCL cocktail do you?

Do you dispute that it’s far better to avoid the infection (ie, vaccine) than to treat the infection later (HCL)?

SeekAndFind wrote: “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.”

I have provided some information that disputes what the AFLD have stated. Here is some additional information from sources far more credible than AFLD:

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/featured-topic/covid-19-vaccine-myths-debunked

Or this one:

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/8-common-covid-19-vaccine-myths-explained/

Or this one:

https://www.mskcc.org/coronavirus/8-myths-about-covid-19-vaccines-debunked

Or, even this one:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/6-dangerous-covid-19-vaccine-myths-debunked-190229451.html

And, here’s one more:

https://www.henryford.com/blog/2020/12/vaccine-myths

The anti-vaxxer propaganda is very clever. Like you, they make statement like ‘we only want you to understand the risks’ while they do all they can to undermine public confidence in the vaccines. How many will die because the believe this propaganda.

RE: You don’t dispute that the vaccine is far more effective than a HCL cocktail do you?

I DON’T YET KNOW. The data is too early and the suppression of HCQ too prevalent to make a comparison.

I am NOT against vaccines, but we need time to evaluate.

RE: Do you dispute that it’s far better to avoid the infection (ie, vaccine) than to treat the infection later (HCL)?

Avoid the infection? You have a 5% of being infected and a Congressman, Stephen Lynch who received the complete 2 does Pfizer vaccine tested positive anyway. See here:

https://www.klfy.com/health/coronavirus/congressman-tests-positive-for-covid-19-after-receiving-second-dose-of-vaccine/

RE: I have provided some information that disputes what the AFLD have stated. Here is some additional information from sources far more credible than AFLD:

Good, the more information, the better. So, do you disagree with the Big Tech and other social media censoring their presentation and only allowing one side to be aired? Or do you applaud what the big techs are doing?

I don’t agree with what they’re doing. The more information out there ( good or bad), the better. Let the public evaluate them for themselves.

RE: The anti-vaxxer propaganda is very clever. Like you, they make statement like ‘we only want you to understand the risks’ while they do all they can to undermine public confidence in the vaccines.

‘Like you?’ Did I ever write anything that is against vaccination? Did I ever UNDERMINE ( emphasis ) vaccines?

But yes, I want people to understand the possible risks.

RE: How many will die because the believe this propaganda.

Same question I ask - how many will die and have died because the doctors were not allowed to prescribe the HCQ or Ivermectin protocols that they OBSERVED have saved their patients when they were administered?

If you see my posts you should know by now that I am for an EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVIDENCE APPROACH.

If you are going to fight against the enemy, you use every weapon at your disposal. If you are going to argue about the effectivity of one weapon vs. the other, you argue OUT IN THE OPEN, not forcibly suppress one in favor of the other.

SeekAndFind wrote: “I am NOT against vaccines, but we need time to evaluate.”

So, how many will die while we’re waiting?
Avoid the infection? You have a 5% of being infected and a Congressman, Stephen Lynch who received the complete 2 does Pfizer vaccine tested positive anyway.”

The vaccines have a 95% effectiveness which is more than sufficient to achieve herd immunity and that, once achieved, is pretty much the end of the virus. Meanwhile, those that rely upon HCL have no long lasting protection.

SeekAndFind wrote: “I don’t agree with what they’re doing. The more information out there ( good or bad), the better. Let the public evaluate them for themselves.’

Sounds very fair but AFLD are very biased in their selection and presentation of the facts. I would believe the links I provided are a much better source of information than these

Here’s some more background on these ‘doctors’:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90533

Turns out their experience with CV19 is rather limited.

SeekAndFind wrote: “‘Like you?’ Did I ever write anything that is against vaccination? Did I ever UNDERMINE ( emphasis ) vaccines?”

Only when you post articles like this one.

SeekAndFind wrote: “Same question I ask - how many will die and have died because the doctors were not allowed to prescribe the HCQ or Ivermectin protocols that they OBSERVED have saved their patients when they were administered?”

Let’s see, HCL might be 25% effective and the vaccine has been proven to be 95% effective. Which do you think will save more lives?

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.