The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of the of America of the American people Is being used to create the crisis.
They need to divide and conquer us to ruin Maybe America.
I don't know crash the dollar.
I don't know steal the rest of our our what limited Treasury value we have left.
I don't know But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary, and more importantly, never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually, they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
do do
I think they already recognize your voice.
I was just gonna go over some of the 2020 2021 timeline I Think some of the evidence that Judy Mike of its and Robert Malone are longtime colluders might have Some evidence might be that Well, obviously they both work with that Who's that producer?
Gosh darn it Mickey Mickey Mickey something something
So Maikiewicz was, I mean the book was planned, the production was all done, it was pretty much certain that she was going to be the big face of the show, or a face of the counter-narrative in 2020, but Malone wasn't.
Malone was a behind-the-scenes kind of guy.
And Malone didn't come out till 2021.
And I think the fact that they've never, they try not to share the stage together, but they both work with Willis.
And they're also both kind of tight with this former Feds group.
And that's what I'm really focusing on right now.
They're this, I shared some stuff with you earlier.
I said, I said I'm live, right?
You know that?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, well, hopefully I didn't say anything.
Hello, everybody.
Well, anyways, I can let you go.
I don't really need to say this right now.
OK, that's fine.
I just wanted to, I didn't want to just blow you off or give you the button message.
We'll talk after I'm done.
Yeah.
I don't want to steal your show with like a 20 minute rant.
It's all good, man.
All right.
Bye.
All right.
Good.
Sorry.
Bye.
Hey, I guess you guys know who that was.
That's our good friend, Mark.
And I just got a message from Grace's dad Scott, a minute ago he wants to talk again, ladies and gentlemen, I got to really tell you that I think.
the sort of landslide is starting.
The sort of, you know, once you get converted to understanding what's going on, once you see the chair with the joystick and the goggles that you've been sitting in and you actually take those goggles off and you take your hand off the joystick, it starts to become a very, very quick learning experience.
And so I think we just got to keep pushing.
That's what I think.
And so I got to correct something from yesterday.
I've got to correct something from yesterday.
I said that the video that we watched yesterday, which was by Nova on PBS called vaccines calling the shots was from 2017.
And that was that was wrong.
It was actually from 2014, which according to Pamela, who was in the chat,
earlier but had to leave, I think that is the same year that the movie Vaxxed came out.
And so here we are, also in the same year, this time at Harvard, having a discussion with five people on the panel, some of whom
contributed to the making of that movie.
And so I thought I would double back and make sure that people realize that I made that mistake.
Of course, I'm going to correct some of these titles on the various platforms that were on to reflect that it was 2014, not 17.
But more importantly, what it should do is really shock you.
That that was really 10 years ago.
That was 5 or 6 years before the pandemic.
Like, that is extraordinary.
This is not even really close to the pandemic.
So you start to see how...
The childhood vaccine schedule has been expanded and resisted and expanded and resisted.
And as social media has grown in scope and in breadth and depth of coverage, it has become a harder and harder thing for them to occupy and to dilute.
And it used to be quite easy, I think, for the PBS NewsHour to dilute with a documentary like that, but now,
with daily shows like Giga Home Biological, daily shows that ask questions like this, even in the best case scenario, they need to titrate us to the truth at best because otherwise there will be a flood and they will look foolish.
And so, so much of our narrative over the last three years has been sucked up by these people that we've been paying a lot of attention to and I've been screaming and yelling about, but
What I think is most important now for me personally, and maybe for a lot of the people that watch, is to really reflect on when we didn't know what was going on.
And so what's crazy, and this makes me feel just a tiny, tiny bit better.
When I saw the PBS NewsHour yesterday, thinking that it was from 2017, that was when my family and I were already in the United States and could have seen that on television.
And so I was a little bit like, wow, was that really going on in the background while I wasn't paying any attention?
Because I was so fricking focused on grant writing and experiments and the next day of experiments and where my mice were and whatever.
You really can reflect back and realize how much of my cognitive energy was wholly focused on the kinds of things that I, all the things that I was busy with at Pitt.
And in the meantime, parents really having to deal with the vaccine schedule, really having to deal with vaccine injury are the only ones in this little bubble that of course moves temporarily through space and time in our culture where only the people who are
dealing with newborn babies to year two are confronted with this, what would obviously be an incongruity for any adult, like any parent.
Once you have a kid, you understand there's a different kind of thing.
If it's your kid or a kid, the level of responsibility and protective instinct that you have changes a lot.
And there's a lot of evidence for it in the brain of animals that we've studied where whole new windows of synaptic plasticity open up in the males that have babies.
And so when you have children, you are changed into a parent.
And it's a biological truth that a lot of people want to ignore.
And indeed, right now at this crucial state and this crucial time in human history, we want to ignore.
And if we go back 10 years and watch how this movie was edified by these people at Harvard on stage about why this movie needs to be made,
what points were being made in the movie, how can we more accurately and more nuanced bring these messages to parents.
And you will notice that there is no concern about the possibility that the combination of lack of liability, lack of strict liability,
and this guaranteed crop of new customers has in any shape or form the possibility to be used malevolently or maliciously, or even just mischievously.
In theory, the vaccine schedule in America could be made perfectly safe and even more profitable by simply putting saline into those shots if they're indeed not doing anything for anyone ever.
And so we really need to look at this, I think, with wide open eyes now and try to see where we were and how we got here and realize that it was a very steady ramp.
I've been thinking it much more of like, oh, they made this huge mistake at the start of the pandemic and all these lies suddenly became obvious.
But what we're finding out is that these lies were being told in a ramp up to the pandemic, not in a ramp up of a couple months, like, you know, they started with DEVENT 201 in October of 2019.
And so obviously they were planning.
No, no, no.
I'm talking about 10 years earlier, 15 years earlier, where they started to write the papers about pandemic potential, started to speculate about pandemic potential, started to build laboratory models about pandemic potential.
started to build laboratory models about viral detection and viral sequencing and viral ecology and all these other things, which established this whole mythology, the basis of the idea of a pandemic.
And so this is part of it.
This is 2014.
Sorry for the long introduction.
Let's get at it.
Excuse my head for a second.
Welcome.
My name is Phil Hiltz, research associate at MIT and former director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships.
And today I'll be the moderator.
The forum is presented in partnership with Tangled Bank Studios, a film production company of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
and in collaboration with NOVA, PRI's The World, and WGBH.
NOVA aired a film on PBS last week called Vaccines Calling the Shots.
That was produced by NOVA at WGBH, Tangled Bank Studios, Gene Poole Productions.
And we're lucky to have some of the producers.
Gene Poole Productions.
That is, it's like they're just waving it in our face.
I mean, come on.
With us here in the audience today.
We will be showing three clips from that film during today's webcast.
We will also take questions from the online and studio audiences both.
A question for the panelists can be emailed to theforum, all one word, at hsph.harvard.edu, or tweeted to atforumhsph using hashtag hash vaccines trust.
So all the way back in 2014, we were already, as an alternative way of communicating, we were tweeting stuff out.
Incredible.
I really resisted Twitter.
I thought it was stupid for a long time until somebody said, oh, yeah, but everybody's solving the mystery on Twitter.
You've got to join Twitter.
That's where everybody is you got to join Twitter You can also participate in a live chat discussion that's happening on the forum site right now
Today's panelists, starting from my immediate right, are Seth Mnookin, Associate Director of MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing and author of The Panic Virus, The True Story Behind the Vaccine Autism Controversy.
The Panic Virus.
And Barry R. Bloom, Professor of Public Health at the Harvard School of Public Health.
We have Richard Malley, Senior Associate Physician in Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital Boston.
And we have Jane Kim, Associate Professor of Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health.
So we've gathered here to discuss trust in vaccines.
What was that?
And we have Jane Kim, Associate Professor of Health Decision Science, Harvard School of Public Health.
So we've gathered here to discuss trust in vaccines.
While most Americans do vaccinate their children and routinely follow recommendations.
I mean, did you, does anybody scream it about that yet?
I mean,
Health decision science, is that really what they said?
Is that even a thing?
Can you imagine?
You know what I want to be when I grow up?
I want to be a health decision scientist.
I think that's the most important thing in the world is to be a health decision scientist.
I've wanted to be a health decision scientist since I was a little tiny Jane Chan.
Your associate physician and medicine division of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital Boston.
And we have Jane Kim, associate professor of health decision science, Harvard School of Public Health.
So we've gathered here to discuss trust in vaccines.
While most Americans do vaccinate their children and routinely follow recommendations, some are now choosing to alter the recommended schedule themselves or select specific vaccines they will allow to be given to their children.
And some have even declined to vaccinate their children altogether.
Why?
And why are these decisions important?
To kick off the conversation, we will show the first of three clips from the NOVA film.
This clip shows several mothers who explain their decisions about vaccinating their children.
We saw this yesterday, but it's good.
Gabriela Motsman wants to vaccinate her two children, but she's chosen not to follow the recommended vaccine schedule.
So the plan is to be fully vaccinated as soon as possible, but we're doing one vaccine at a time.
I don't know if that's the right way.
I don't even know where I came up with that.
Yeah, I don't know.
Yulia Patse has a four-year-old and is expecting another child soon.
She delayed vaccinating her oldest till she was three.
I was concerned that her immune system couldn't handle it, and we just waited.
My son and her, they're not vaccinated yet, and my older ones don't have boosters.
Mariana Festovsky has four children.
She vaccinated at first, but then one child had a seizure.
I'm just really worried about reactions.
And I am worried about the diseases, so kind of confused, really.
In America, children must be vaccinated before they start kindergarten.
But the required shots vary from state to state, and most allow for exemptions based on personal or religious beliefs.
Here in California, almost 3% of children are exempt.
And in some schools, it's more than 30%.
I have a lot of friends who don't vaccinate at all.
And if you say vaccine around them, they look at you like you are literally, well, you know, like you are poisoning your child.
On the other hand, you have parents that can't even understand why this is even a question.
Nobody is willing to really have a conversation with you and discuss what's a severe reaction.
Is it OK to have a seizure?
I would really like to know what the real risks are.
Okay, Seth, what do you think?
And the real answer is they don't know.
You see, they don't understand the immune system well enough to augment it with intramuscular injection.
And they have this proxy, which is antibodies or seroprevalence that the government and the FDA and the CDC and the biosecurity state has allowed to become a standard which defines immunity both in the context of medicine and in the context of public health.
That's how stupid it is.
And because all of these people have a vested interest in not understanding it, because otherwise their career will crash, most of these people don't bother understanding it, because what little part that they have to understand isn't very hard.
You heard that that author down there at the far end here, where I use my arrow, that guy right there, I don't know if you can see that or not, that guy right there was an author of a book called The Panic Virus.
So he thinks it is a problem of people and of lemmings and of sheep.
And this woman is a associate professor at Harvard in something called health decision science.
Stop lying.
And that's pretty extraordinary because we're not, I mean, really, I don't know.
I just, I gotta,
I got a lot of trouble with some of this stuff.
I really do.
Because we should have been aware that this was going on, and we weren't.
And it is frustrating.
It is very, very frustrating that that's the case.
But when you don't have children, you're not paying attention to it.
And when you're
when your children are healthy or your children are through this crucial window of development, the odds of you noticing the injury rather than just thinking it's an allergy or a rash or eczema or whatever other things, acne, whatever they get is lower and lower and lower because the temporal correlation will most likely go away.
And so unless a teenager is severely injured, all the other symptoms that are probably attributable to some of these older vaccines that are very, very, very toxic.
are misattributed to just everyday life.
Again, because these kids aren't in perfect shape, they're not eating perfect foods, and so there's lots of potential for it to be a compound problem.
And of course, public health has every incentive and has billions of dollars aimed at making sure that
whether it's 1% of the problem or 100% of the problem, that the vaccine schedule is never considered a possible contributor to any of these problems.
That's the trick.
It's the idea that, well, I mean, it's not the vaccines.
Let's start there.
And then we can list whatever we want to.
And because it's this thing, and it's mostly genes, and it's mostly what, then you immediately, it's all about just convincing people to understand one thing and one thing only, that the vaccines can't be to blame.
It's impossible.
Vaccines don't hurt people.
And when they do, as they showed us yesterday, it's one in like 20 Michigan football games.
It's really extraordinary what we're dealing with, because that is the bamboozlement that we have
such an understanding of the immune system that we have wiped out childhood diseases as a result of using vaccines, and that the vaccines can't possibly change in quality, in quantity, in content.
They can't possibly need even stricter regulation because of how they are almost mandated.
They can't possibly need stricter controls or better under, none of this stuff.
Because once it's a vaccine, it's safe, and you are racist and anti-American for thinking otherwise.
That's where we are, and we were there in 2014.
That's what's extraordinary.
Going on here.
What leads to this hesitancy?
Well, one thing I think is interesting is we're dealing with a generation that, for the most part, has not seen the effects of vaccine-preventable diseases.
So my peers have not grown up in an era where they saw children blinded by rubella or routinely hospitalized by measles.
One thing I think is really interesting about that clip is their statement.
You mean like when the...
when the Brady Bunch did an episode about one in the family getting measles and had a whole chalkboard about who had this and who had that.
And they were keeping track of all the things that they got.
And after they got them, it was all fine.
But then actually Greg also got measles because he'd never had it.
I mean, when those kids were all in the in the hospital and, you know, like back before we had antibiotics for things and that kind of stuff.
I don't know.
These people are absolutely spectacularly committed to this lie.
I don't know if this is the right way.
I don't even know how we came up with this when they're talking about the alternate vaccine schedules, which is one of the things I find so shocking because we do know how we actually came up with the vaccine schedule that is recommended.
And that's figuring out how we could best protect children.
So what
those parents are doing are leaving their children vulnerable at the exact moment when all of those vaccine-preventable diseases are going to potentially do the most harm.
So, but, you know, I think in addition to their not having seen... And so they don't make any consideration for the fact that the earlier you push back an intramuscular injection of any combination of substances,
with the intent of augmenting the immune system, the earlier you push it back, the more likely it is that you're going to interfere with an uninterruptible process in development, and that that will have cascading effects for the rest of that child's life.
Just think about it from the perspective of being a retired 65-year-old man who's decided that he's gonna try heroin versus a six-month-old baby who's, you've decided you want to have try heroin.
And which one might have worse consequences for the outcomes of that individual?
Because when we get to this critical window in development that in the brain is,
acknowledged in neuroscience in general to extend all the way to the early 20s for our young people, that augmenting their immune system with the possibility of interfering with the ongoing development of not their liver, but their brain is a pretty amazing arrogance.
If we were really to appreciate the irreducible complexity and the sacred biology that are our teenagers, then as they go through puberty, when their body is trying to completely reorganize the synaptic structure of their brain from a young animal to an adult form,
that we have no concept or clue of what's actually going on there, but we just know that it's a waterfall cascade across metabolic pathways for like four or five or six, sometimes seven years.
And we have the arrogance to think that we can intramuscularly inject combinations of substances to augment that immune system during that process.
A process that we all agree takes at least 22 years before the full frontal cortex and neocortex of a human is mature.
And this is the kind of biological truth that these people should be telling and preaching from the rooftops, that when a baby comes out, the reason why you can't just put it outside in a little house with a bowl of water and food is because it is still way, way, way developing and still requires incredible amount of social, physical,
interaction with its parents and its conspecifics, it's part of its development.
And without that, then the development will go wrong.
Is it impossible to imagine that if you raised a baby in a shoebox and never had any physical contact with it, that it might be slightly different than a baby who wasn't?
And so then is it so difficult to understand why augmenting the immune system with a combination of substances injected intramuscularly at six months and then at seven months and at eight months and then at nine months for the next six months until they've been augmented or injected 28 times might be a little arrogant?
In light of the complex process that's happening before our eyes, that maybe the first thing we should have done is focused on making sure that that mom is fully facilitated in her maximum ability to be able to breastfeed and care for that child in a stress-free way, so that that child grows up in a stress-free environment.
but we don't talk about that at all.
They're not talking.
They don't care about that.
They're just, they just think that childhood is all dependent on whether or not you got measles or whether you're not, you got whooping cough or even worse, whether you saw people who got it.
And if you don't, then you grow up real naive and dumb.
and unaware of things, and it's a danger.
In a lot of these diseases, you also saw there some skepticism, some larger skepticism about expertise, about doctors in some situations, so a lot going on.
Yeah, I'm a bit confused, I guess.
So let's look at another clip about vaccines.
This one begins with an immunologist, Gustav Nussl, from the University of Melbourne.
What we have seen in the industrialized world is essentially all of the major epidemics, they've vanished.
Mums today have every... Remember that we're listening to Australians and Australian doctors and Australian people.
And in 2014, we watched an Australian person in the hospital wearing a headdress, having this baby with whooping cough.
And we're listening to this guy who can't even brush his teeth.
Tell us about how we need vaccines and how vaccines are magic, just like Brett Weinstein thinks they're magic.
The 2013 measles outbreak in New York hit hard and fast, but remained within the Brooklyn area.
Oh, is this the part with the guy and the flag?
Why didn't it spread to the other 8 million people in the city?
The virus was in circulation, even though it often wasn't obvious.
And it was being carried by people who often had no idea they were infected.
But the vast majority of people who came into contact with the virus had protection.
They were vaccinated.
that matter for whether or not I'm going to get sick.
One is, if I bump into somebody who has the disease, am I protected against it or not?
But the other piece, and the more important piece, is the chance I will bump into somebody in the first place who has this disease.
And you can think of this as these sort of concentric circles of people.
And the less the disease exists in my circle or the next circle or the next circle, the safer I am.
It's known as herd immunity.
and it protects everyone, including young babies and people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Remember Brett told us about a sort of hybrid herd immunity where a combination of vaccines and infection and clever use of prophylactics like ivermectin could essentially bring us back to zero COVID, which was a goal in June of 2021 that he still thought was very attainable and worthwhile, maybe even to the point of forced drugging a nation.
And in New York, it worked.
If we didn't have the high vaccination levels that we do, you know, in New York City and even in this community, I can promise you we would have had hundreds if not thousands of cases.
But this protection is fragile.
For highly infectious diseases like measles, we need 95% of the community vaccinated for herd immunity to hold.
If the rate drops, even just a few percent, herd immunity can collapse.
Barry, tell us more about vaccines themselves and how their nature fits into this picture.
So the whole concept of a vaccine is to help people, particularly kids, develop an immune response against a germ that threatens ultimately their lives.
The usual way it was done historically is you got sick with an infection, and you either lived or died.
If you lived, you probably generated immune response.
So many infections don't come twice.
But I think what Sir Gus Nossel's comment was is hard to imagine how astonishing the effects of vaccines were.
I mean, it's the only example where a disease, smallpox, has been eradicated from the face of the earth, and I think it's hard for you to imagine, but there were 50 million
patients with smallpox, a very big percentage of which, 80% in the case of children, died from smallpox.
That's gone since 1977.
Polio, 350,000 paralyzed cases worldwide before the vaccine.
And now we have maybe 15 to 20.
We have, in this country, essentially no polio, or very, very little.
And before then, in the U.S., we had 20,000 cases of kids that are paralyzed.
Before whooping cough vaccine, there were 12 million kids in this country who got whooping cough.
Every kid got measles.
And so these have done spectacular things.
Just remember that the fatality rate of these diseases plummeted drastically with the
with increase in sanitation, water purification, antibiotics, just the advancement of medicine, washing of hands, this kind of thing.
So there were lots of advancements that were made that led to a drastic drop in the mortality rate of all of these diseases and their prevalence.
which is oh, so many and so often completely credited to the rollout of vaccines, which is completely disingenuous.
The question is, how do we know they're safe?
Are they safe?
And the answer is, vaccines are different than drugs.
We know that because you give them to healthy kids, not people who are sick.
Wow.
So vaccines are different than drugs because we give them to healthy kids, not to kids that are sick.
Well, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Who is the audience that he is convincing with such a ridiculously dumb statement?
I mean, that is some seriously, that is some seriously sad shit right there.
Are they safe?
And the answer is, vaccines are different than drugs.
We know that because you give them to healthy kids, not people who are sick.
And we have to be enormously thoughtful and careful to prevent anyone from being harmed by a vaccine.
See, so the idea is, is that we would never, I mean, this is even more important than sick kids.
Think about how stupid of a question that is.
What kind of rationale is that?
That we would be, we're being even more careful with healthy kids than we are with sick kids.
That is the stupidest argument, the most illogical, hugest, gigantic, massive incongruency in thinking morally, ethically.
I don't know what this is, but this is just dumb.
Somebody should have stood up and yelled at this guy and then walked out to like, this is atrocious.
High schoolers should reject a, an argument like this.
They're intramuscularly injected combinations of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system of a healthy child.
You're God dang right.
They're different than medicine.
Not in the way this monkey is saying it.
But people are very different.
No vaccine is absolutely perfect.
And there are, for the vaccines we give now, on the order of one in a million child will find an adverse effect.
We'd love to reduce that to zero.
But the fact is that the safety is as good as it can be made.
And we take, we, the scientific community, the medical community,
As good as an intramuscular injection of any combination of untested substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system can be, which is dumb.
That's as good as it can be.
It's dumb.
It's not going to get any smarter.
No matter how many Peter Cullis's or Robert Malone's you put on that problem, it's not going to get any smarter.
That's why Robert Malone was really into electroporation at the skin and stuff, because he knew it.
And he still probably knows it now.
It's just part of the titration.
If we got there all at once, we would throw all these people out of the car and never listen to them again.
If we got to the truth all at once, we would put all these people in jail and never listen to them again.
But we've got to get to the truth over many years.
And that's what's happening.
That's why we have so much work to do.
This was 2014.
Take that enormously seriously.
We heard about, we would like to call it community immunity rather than herd immunity.
What happens when you stop vaccinating?
Well, we don't see much.
We've had more outbreaks in the last two years of vaccine-preventable diseases in the U.S.
than we've had in the past 20, because people, for whatever sets of reasons, have chosen not to vaccinate.
their kids.
But let me give you one example to indicate how serious it could be.
We had almost wiped out polio.
It was down to four countries when one state in Nigeria decided to stop vaccinating.
Within two years, 24 countries that had wiped out polio now and continuingly have to vaccinate their kids all over again.
So one has only to look at what's happening with Ebola when you don't have a vaccine for a lethal virus disease.
So the power of vaccines is enormous.
And the challenge is, how can we persuade people that it's in everybody's interest to protect their kids and their communities?
Rick, tell us a little bit about your experiences as a doctor who delivers vaccinations.
Well, so I'm a pediatrician, and I've worked for many years at Children's Hospital.
And the first experience I had was very similar to what both Seth and Barry said, which is I started at Children's Hospital as an intern in 1990.
What we learned was how to take care of children afflicted with Haemophilus influenzae type B invasive disease.
I became very good at that, I think, by the end of my internship year.
And I was ready, preparing myself to train the new intern crop in what I had learned, and the disease disappeared.
Because in 1990, we introduced the H flu type B universal immunization campaign in the U.S.
From one year to the next, a disease that was inflicting one in 200 kids
Completely disappeared from our state from from pretty much every state in the in the u.s.
And then I want to hear that again Hold on.
He's that disease invasive disease said which is well I saw my pediatrician and I've worked for many years at Children's Hospital and No, he's in Boston was very similar to what both Seth and Barry said which is I started at Children's Hospital as an intern in 1990 and
What we learned was how to take care of children afflicted with Haemophilus influenzae type B invasive disease.
I became very good at that, I think, by the end of my internship year.
And I was ready, preparing myself to train the new intern crop in what I... So I'm pretty sure that what he meant was HIB, H-I-B.
There is a vaccine called the HIB
And there is a Hib vaccine, which is like what he said.
It's like some influenza B, hemophilia influenza B, you gotta look it up.
I'm not that guy.
that vaccine is very nasty.
And if you look it up, that vaccine has changed owners a couple times.
And if you look that up, you will find that that vaccine actually immunizes kids to the diphtheria toxin.
The diphtheria toxin is, is conjugated to the, the Hib protein, but the large portion of antigenic
information or antigenic material available in that vaccine is actually the diphtheria toxin.
And so any antibodies that are said to be indicative of that vaccine working are much more likely to be specific for the diphtheria toxin than they are for the Hib.
protein itself, and I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that when they evaluated the effectiveness of these products that targeted that and used this combination of the diphtheria toxin and Hib
protein that they were looking at, polyclonal antibodies that could pull down any portion of that protein, which again, doesn't necessarily provide immunity.
It's another interesting thing is that the Hib vaccine in at least some databases that I have seen, I'm not sure it's smart for me to say which databases I've seen, but I've seen a state database or more,
or indirectly seen analysis of these databases.
And I do know that the Hib vaccine, be it Hib-Titer or the new one, which is I think Prevnar, these are both basically the same formulation, and they are both shit, and they are both associated with a high number
of vaccine reported injuries in the childhood schedule.
And so it's very curious to me that in 2014, this guy's talking about it when one of the worst of those vaccines was actually in use and later pulled from the market.
But yeah, he's ready to train interns.
I've learned.
And the disease disappeared.
Because in 1990, we introduced the H-flu type B universal immunization campaign.
Yeah, he's saying H-flu type B. But if you look it up, it's like, yeah, anyway, you'll see it.
It's Hib, H with a big H, little I, big B, I believe.
US.
From one year to the next, a disease that was afflicting one in 200 kids completely disappeared from our state, from pretty much every state in the US and then in Western Europe.
And that was a dramatic transformation, such that today when we talk to residents or physicians and we mention Haemophilus influenzae type B disease, the greatest majority of them have never seen a case and don't even consider it as even a possibility.
Now I work in a travel clinic at Children's Hospital where I immunize children and adults who are traveling abroad.
And what I have noticed is very similar to the tape, which is that, in general, I'm seeing a patient population that is sort of inclined to get vaccinated.
Otherwise, they wouldn't really come to a travel clinic.
But even amongst them, there is this idea that perhaps
I wonder how they were identifying it, right?
I wonder if there was a test for it.
Maybe the way that it works is they, they roll out a test and for a few years, they're telling all these pediatricians to test for this and see how prevalent it is.
And then after a few years, if the test says that it's prevalent all the time in the, in the ICUs of hospitals, they can argue that they need to roll out a vaccine.
I wonder if it's something like that.
This guy would definitely know.
we should be managing the vaccine schedule a little bit differently, because their kids may not be ready to receive that vaccine.
And I think it's something very interesting, because in many ways, as clinicians, as physicians, we participate in the confusion that one of the individuals portrayed in the clip showed, where if we say, yes, we might start changing the schedule to accommodate your child, we are sort of acquiescing to the idea that this may not be safe, and let's
And so that's the idea.
Any recognition of the complexity of the problem, any recognition of the sacredness of early childhood development, both from a biological perspective, but also from a neurobiological perspective, from a metabolic perspective, from an allergies perspective, from any number of perspectives, it just makes very good sense up until
around 85 or 90 in America, it makes good sense to delay it.
That's why they still allow you to delay shots in Norway until year two, if you're going to breastfeed until then.
Do you understand the implications of that simple statement that a country like Norway or Sweden, or even the Netherlands will basically go, okay, well, if you're going to breastfeed, don't worry.
You can come back later.
But here we have people on stage at Harvard that are creating the illusion of consensus that the only responsible position to take is that the earlier the better.
And don't you dare question what we recommend because we have the best interest of your family and your kid at heart.
And it's all about doing it for your neighbor or some shit.
There is no biology on this fricking forum at all.
We got a lot of work to do, because this is how people got to the stage where in 2020, when Brett Weinstein went on his show with a bandana around his face and then wood shop goggles on to explain how he goes to the store, and they were already here before the pandemic, then boom.
Not only were they not going to get out, but they were going to take the TV seriously because even the batshit crazy people on the intellectual dark web are agreeing with them.
that could be even worse?
What if it's a laboratory virus that we can't make immunity to because it's flying AIDS?
We did it differently just to make you more comfortable.
But in fact, if we said that for her child, why would we not do it for everybody?
So I think in many ways, we participate in the confusion when we try to accommodate fears that are probably best dealt with scientifically rather than emotionally.
Jane, it seems there's some mistrust directed at other vaccines, newer ones, besides the standard.
Here we go.
Sure.
So one of the new vaccines is HPV vaccination.
I think there are several issues that really make HPV vaccination very unique.
The first and I think most obvious thing is that the vaccine is targeting a sexually transmitted infection.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection worldwide.
And we now know that it causes nearly all cervical cancers, as well as a large number of... Causes all cervical cancers.
I mean, think about that Nobel Prize winning statement for the person who figured that shit out.
vaginal, vulvar, penile, anal and oropharyngeal cancers, which are actually on the rise.
So this vaccine is actually trying to protect against cancer.
And I think when they first came out on the market, there was nobody knew what HPV was.
And, you know, and even less people knew the causal link.
And it's so funny, isn't it?
That nobody knew what HPV was.
And so I got a job with
Merck and Harvard to become a health decision scientist and figure out why it is that people don't think that we can use a vaccine to cure a virus that causes cervical cancer, like all of them, and all the anus and penis cancer too.
Cancer.
So the vaccine really caught on as an STD vaccine, which automatically makes the issues, the subject a little more touchy, a little bit more controversial.
I think over the past couple of years, there's really been an effort with communication and education, a turning of the tides to raise awareness that this is really an anti-cancer vaccine.
The second thing I wanted to mention was actually the timing of vaccination, which makes HPV vaccination special.
This is a vaccine that is targeted primarily to young adolescents, so ages 11 and 12, and as early as age nine.
And this is a time where health services are not being administered as routinely.
This vaccine requires three doses over a six-month period.
Oh, that is just gross.
I mean, she is just advocating for it as if that makes sense, as if that's just okay.
I mean, wow, it's just awful.
Raise awareness that this is really an anti-cancer vaccine.
The second thing I wanted to mention was actually- And why is that?
Because we watched that video yesterday, right?
Because we don't want parents to think that it's a sexually transmitted disease we're trying to prevent so that we're enabling their kids to have sex younger.
We don't want them to think that.
So we've got to make it about cancer.
See, they are telling you what the limited spectrum of debate is, that if you trap parents in that limited spectrum of debate, they'll basically have no choice but to take your recommendation.
The limited spectrum of debate is that, don't worry, this is not to encourage your kid to have sex.
Don't worry, this is really about cancer and you don't want your kid to have cancer.
timing of vaccination, which makes HPV vaccination special.
This is a- Three in six months or our perfectly orchestrated augmentation of your teenager's immune system will not work quite right.
And they might be vulnerable to cervical cancer anyway.
Think about what she's- Think about what- Why are you doing that?
Think about what she's saying there.
Right?
Think about it.
Think about what she's saying there.
I'm just gonna go back one more time.
Vaccine really caught on as an STD vaccine, which automatically makes the issues, the subject a little more touchy, a little bit more controversial.
I think over the past couple of years, there's really been an effort with communication and education, a turning of the tides to raise awareness that this is really an anti-cancer vaccine.
The second thing I wanted to mention was actually the timing of vaccination, which makes HPV vaccination special.
This is a vaccine that is targeted primarily to young adolescents.
So ages 11 and 12 and as early as age nine.
And the only reason why.
The only reason why is because of the story that she told originally, which is that it's a sexually transmitted disease, they say.
And so we have to get it in kids before they have sex, even though she says she doesn't want to make it about that.
She wants to make it about cancer.
The reason why that time, she has no other.
Back up the truck, right?
She has no other explanation for why it's between 10 and 12 and not at 16 or not at 22 or not at four.
She has no argument other than the preceding bullshit argument that this is a sexually transmitted disease.
We got to get it to them before they start having sex.
So we should target between 10 and 12.
So we get the vast majority of them.
You see how dishonest they are?
You see how dishonest they've always been?
They're so dishonest, they don't even understand they're doing it.
This is a time where health services are not being administered as routinely.
Because why?
Because the kids are healthy, they're growing, they don't need a lot, they don't get sick a lot, so they're not coming in to the doctor.
And so this is a problem because, you know,
This vaccine requires three doses over a six-month period, so we're really... In order for our highly orchestrated augmentation of your teenager's healthy immune system to work properly, these doses have to be given in a strict regimen in a six-month time window because we understand exactly what's going on and if it doesn't happen in that six-month time window, then it won't work.
Stop!
Lying!
And so that's why.
I mean, it's really important to understand that we have such an intricate understanding of how these vaccines work that some of them only need one every few years.
Others of them need three doses in six months to work.
Stop lying!
placing a burden on parents and the vaccine recipients themselves to come back to the health clinic for multiple visits at a time when they wouldn't otherwise be intersecting with the health care system.
So I think in talking about how to increase the rates of HPV vaccination and other vaccines, we'll really need to figure out how to overcome these logistical challenges to make the vaccines more accessible.
The last thing I wanted to mention was actually the timing of the disease relative to vaccination.
So for a lot of the childhood vaccines, we're really addressing diseases that have a very imminent, very visible threat.
But with HPV vaccination, we're talking about preventing cancers that otherwise wouldn't present themselves for another 20 or 30 years.
We are making a silly, crazy claim that in a six-month battery of three shots, we can effectively prevent many different types of cancers.
That's what she should say if she was being truthful about what Merck is promising with their product Gardasil.
Why don't they call it Gardasil?
Why don't they remind us that it's a commercial product?
They don't want you to realize that, right?
They don't want you to, they want you to think that these are all generic medicines that are made by some generic factory that the government runs.
So I do think that there is some kind of discounting of health benefits that we attribute to HPV vaccination compared to these other childhood vaccines.
And in similar, in a similar way with respect to the other childhood child, the vaccine preventable diseases,
With cervical cancer, which is the most strongly linked to HPV, we've also been the victim of our own success in that we've had pap smear screening programs for decades that have dramatically reduced the incidence and burden of cervical cancer.
And so the need for HPV vaccination may not feel as urgent.
But I think it's critical to remember that for these other HPV-related cancers, there really is no other prevention mechanism.
There are no screening programs.
And so the HPV vaccines really remain the best defense against them.
That is just absurd.
It's the best because that's all we've got?
I mean, it's so gross.
She has no biology here at all, and she works in the Department of Health Decision Science.
Stop lying!
Now we're going to turn from describing the problem to beginning to talk about what could be done about it.
Patient education is part of the issue.
Let's take a look at a clip from the Nova film that shows a pediatrician talking to patients about the HPV vaccine.
Here we go.
So people often say they wish they could prevent cancer.
People often say they wish they could prevent cancer.
I don't know.
I wake up every other morning thinking, man, I wish I could prevent cancer.
It prevents cancer.
Who doesn't want that for their child?
Amy Middleman is a mother of three.
She's also- So don't talk about all the toxins that they put on their skins and the toxins that are in your laundry detergent.
Don't talk about the toxins that are in your laundry tumbler sheets.
Don't talk about the toxins that are in their processed food or their breakfast cereals or the soft drinks that they drink or the energy drinks that they do or all the other supplements that are around nowadays or the cosmetics that girls buy.
Don't talk about any of those things.
adolescent pediatrician involved in assessing the safety and effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.
She vaccinated her children as soon as it became available.
I am a little confused by the drama around this vaccine.
To me, this is... We are watching a video of other people watching a video that we watched yesterday.
It's a life-saving vaccine.
I can't imagine not giving it to my children.
She can't imagine not giving it to her children.
If she didn't give it to her children, she probably wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
On the other hand, I think sometimes we expect parents to have all of the data that we have as physicians, and that's not really fair.
So our job as providers is to make sure we... Let me give you an alternative universe for a second.
Shall we try an alternative universe that just came up?
And you know, I'm not saying this is what we should do.
I just want to give you an alternative universe to think about.
Now, let's just imagine that vaccines worked.
And let's imagine...
Ooh, that's the bell.
They are in Detroit now.
Let's just imagine that vaccines work and that they work by augmenting your immune system, by opening a window of educational opportunity.
And then whatever your body is exposed to, your immune system will process and learn.
And then let's imagine that the doctor sat you down and he said, okay, or she said, um, Jonathan, I'm fearless.
Uh, your daughter is approaching three years of age and you're considering stopping breastfeeding.
And so we need to talk about vaccination against measles and against whooping cough and a couple other things that are really vital in my humble opinion.
Now, when we do these things, it's going to be really important when we open this window of vulnerability to your immune system, it's going to be really vital that the microbiome of your daughter is in the proper state, that her body is properly detoxed.
So that the only possible antigenic signal that your daughter's body would have available to it are the signals that we are going to provide via the oral vaccine and the cream that we're going to put on her.
So essentially this process is going to take about three weeks.
You're going to be on it.
She's going to be on a very strict diet.
She's going to have to do a couple things like that.
But you know, there's a whole list.
And then if you've checked off all of those things, then we can start the battery of exposure, which will go across three weeks and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Imagine if a doctor showed the kind of
of understanding, in-depth understanding that I just tried to explain.
This is a fantasy world where vaccines do work and they do open a window of opportunity in your immune system, but then the doctors understand that the complexity of this is not to be underestimated.
And so they take all kinds of measures for three weeks to make sure that this young, already pretty developed child at age four is properly detoxed and properly sterile, if you will, from an immunological perspective, so that they are ready to be augmented.
And I really think that if you just start to imagine, if you really believe the thing, if these people really believe the things that they are saying and really understood the immune system and our physiology as a whole for the irreducible complexity that it is, then they would at least have the respect for what they were about to do so that they would have already been at least what I just described there.
very respectful of what they were about to try to accomplish and very aware that, you know, when we immunize your child, we're opening up a window that if you make a mistake and and expose them to the wrong thing, it could permanently augment them in a way that we don't want.
That would be approaching something sounding like informed consent to vaccination.
separate the issues and bring forth the important ones that should be considered.
If, again, if this biology turns out to have some real, some real aspects to it, which I'm still open to the possibility that most of it will not.
that most of these pathogens that are characterized with fancy names are really just symptomologies that have been misconstrued as having pathogens which track with them.
And I'm much more open to that idea.
Certainly, certainly much more open to that idea than I was before 2022.
The key is to vaccinate boys and girls before they're ever exposed to the virus.
That is before they become sexually active.
See, so it's still about that.
So she says that they would just don't want to make it about that when we're trying to give informed consent to the parents and to the children.
And that's just, that is just gross.
It's recommended for every boy and girl at age 11 and 12.
This is just like everything else.
You want to get the vaccine before you have a risk of getting the disease so that it protects you.
Around 60 million doses of the HPV vaccine have been given in the U.S.
Like all vaccines, it's carefully monitored for safety.
There have been claims of rare, serious reactions, even deaths.
These have been carefully investigated.
There are no serious adverse events associated with this vaccine in a causal way.
This is one of the safest vaccines that we have to offer, and it prevents cancer.
I would say, Susie, that one of the reasons why they really discourage or, let's say, don't encourage breastfeeding is because of that, because it's a social, they're creating dissociative behavior.
I mean, my wife,
breastfed our daughter until I mean, I don't know, I don't even I don't want to say how long because it was it's magical.
OK, now let's turn to Barry and Seth, who both worked on a report called Public Trust in Vaccines Defining a Research Agenda.
What research is needed and why?
Starting with Barry.
One would think that people in the business of immunizing kids and protecting kids from infection would have a really good idea of, with the numbers that I've cited and that we know that have wiped out these diseases, as you heard in the film, why would anybody hesitate vaccinating their kids?
We don't have data for that.
We don't have good evidence to know what are the ways that people make up their minds about vaccines.
Where do they get the information from?
How good is the information?
Is it social networks?
Is it over the back fence?
Is it from moms at schools?
See, social networks in 2014 weren't quite there yet, but they were going to be.
So it's very hard to develop a strategy if, in fact, we actually don't know what the values that people are bringing when they come to the pediatrician and say, I don't want to use my kid as a pin cushion.
It's hard to say, that's not what this is about.
It's protecting your kid in the community from many things.
So I think there's a huge need for evidence that everybody can believe.
that would help doctors, Rick and all other pediatricians, and people who work in their offices, who actually often meet with the parents, to do a better job of anticipating their concerns and providing the evidence to allow them to make better decisions that are now being made.
Do we know why the research is lagging behind?
What caused that?
I think that's actually one of the many questions.
I mean, one of the reasons why Barry and I led the workshop that put together this report was because we both had had the experience of being asked to participate in a conference, a workshop, a meeting about vaccine hesitancy and trying to figure out why people were hesitant.
And I think we both realized, I realized very starkly that here we were discussing and debating why it was people made decisions based on instinct and not on reason, but we had no data in front of us.
So we were sitting there and throwing out our instinctual reactions as to why people were hesitant about vaccines.
And that did not seem like a good way to go about that.
I think there are a couple of things that are really striking.
If we look back at the last couple of decades of vaccine communication, and that's the result of our not having this data.
We've had really poor vaccine communication outreach.
You know, whenever I see something about HPV... What does that even mean?
We've had very poor vaccine communication outreach.
I mean, seriously.
I think of the smoking ads that show someone in the shower with a voice box.
And have someone, a survivor of cervical cancer, talking about what it's like to suffer through that, that can very quickly change the conversation.
Holy shit.
They're talking about coercion, coercion with no scientific basis.
We are assuming that this three-shot, six-month battery at 10 to 12 years of age will protect your child 30 years from now.
We have no data, but why don't we encourage people to take this
three-dose, six-month battery of augmentation based on an anecdotal portrayal of a cervical cancer victim.
It's so gross.
So in terms of the type of research that's needed.
I mean, if you're talking from a pure salesman perspective, you know, like how can we get people to just accept it?
How can we get people to everybody to eat at McDonald's or how can we get everybody to wear Nikes?
Then that's all they're talking about.
And of course, in that case, we have, we know all kinds of different ways to coerce people into accepting even, even begging for it.
That's exactly what they're talking about here.
There is no rational respect for the sovereignty of parents or their responsibility over their children, and there is no respect for the
the perfectly made child that comes out of 99.9% of healthy moms all around the world every day.
Just to amplify a little bit what Barry said, we don't even know, once we have a vaccine hesitant parent,
if the best approach is to change the subject, which it actually might be, or to sit down and talk to them, or to say, you know what, I'm vaccinating your children, end of conversation.
Say what?
In 2014, say what?
the subject, which it actually might be, or to sit down and talk to them, or to say, you know what, I'm vaccinating your children, end of conversation.
And that's a very wide range of different decisions.
One thing that's also really, really clear, and Rick, you could probably speak to this is, it's... Does that guy have children?
He's got too much acne to have children in my humble opinion.
Not just parents who are frustrated here.
Pediatricians are also very frustrated because they're put in a position where in a 15-minute wellness appointment, when they have A through Z that they also need to cover,
they're being asked to address these really fundamental concerns about their child's health.
And so I think this is a situation where there's frustration sort of from top to bottom.
If you want to have that conversation with a patient, there's no way to bill for that.
There's no insurance code for that.
So either you need to make up some reason why they need to come back in, or you're stuck not having it.
Oh man, it's the insurance codes.
They're screwing up our insurance codes, man.
Holy ships.
Rick?
No, I agree completely.
I think it's a very frustrating situation for everybody.
The best solution, of course, is to avoid the sort of nuclear option of saying, I'm going to immunize your child no matter what you say.
And of course, we can never get away with it.
And we never want to, because it's really a dismissive way of taking care of patients.
I think one thing that's very interesting, and I'd be curious
Under no circumstances are they debating the variable effectiveness of different vaccines, the different necessity for different vaccines, because all of these diseases are deadly.
And since they're all deadly, then they all need vaccines.
For example, has the rotavirus vaccine saved as many people as the measles vaccine supposedly saved?
Or have as many people been saved by the, by the, I don't know, DTAP as have been saved by the polio vaccine?
You see what I mean?
There's no, it's just all one shelf of good shit.
And one shelf of stuff that you just shouldn't question.
I mean,
This is how the mass goes.
At a certain moment, you're on your knees and then you stand up and you walk to the front of the church and you take a wafer and you take a drink and you come back around and you get back on your knees.
This is just how the mass goes.
You can't ask questions about why you're there except for, you know, you're on your knees because you're in the presence of something that then goes away and so then you're not to be on your knees anymore.
That's how the mass goes.
These people are talking about a faith for which they have no basis in reality for believing.
other than their own children and their patients haven't been injured in a temporally correlative way that they've managed to detect.
And that is the sad truth of it.
See what Jane thinks about this is when you look at the analogy of the hepatitis B vaccine, which is in fact a vaccine that is targeting a sexually transmitted infection that will lead to many problems, including cirrhosis and possibly also hepatocellular carcinoma.
And so
So liver disease is being prevented by the hepatitis B vaccine.
And I think that's the one they give to babies as soon as they come out of the hole, which is the grossest thing of all in America's schedule.
This is a vaccine that really, in many ways, is very similar to the HPV vaccine with one, even another similarity, which was originally introduced in adolescence and then shuttled down to the very young.
particularly when they noticed that the uptake in the adolescents was really very low.
But here is a vaccine that really is very similar to the one you see.
So they couldn't get teens to take it, so they shifted it to date of birth.
And these four adults, or five adults, are pretending to have some basic biological understanding that edifies their better understanding of vaccines and the rest of the people in the room.
Stop lying.
And they're not even lying.
They're just dumb.
They are just bamboozled by their own bullshit and by their bullshit of the people around them.
No different than what happens in a large congregation in a church.
Except in this case, they are under the misconception that they don't believe in ghosts.
that they believe in brick walls and toolboxes and measuring tapes, scales, you know, hard science.
study, it is a sexually transmitted infection.
It can also be transmitted other ways, such as IV drug use and so forth, and blood transfusions.
But it is trying to eliminate a deadly cancer.
And yet now, when we give it to children, I have very rarely heard of parents actively refusing that vaccine, perhaps because
Perhaps because you have to actively do it, because otherwise you don't even know it's coming, and before your baby's even made any noises, two needles have gone in her ass.
And if you say, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, the obstetrician's not gonna stop and say, oh, you forgot about this?
No, you have to actually actively ask not to have it.
These frickin' barbarians.
The same people that cut the foreskin off of any baby whose parents are too stupid to know better.
Because, you know, it's really handy for cell cultures.
The virology people like Vincent Racaniello, they really like foreskin culture.
Fibroblasts are great.
But America is a bastion of freedom and liberty.
It's just that our healthcare system is the front-facing part of our slavery, that's all.
As we are now learning with HPV, we're moving away from talking about it as a vaccine against a disease that is transmitted by sex or IV drug use.
Nobody would really volunteer for that necessarily, but we've avoided that problem and now the uptake of hepatitis B vaccination is quite high.
They're saying it's quite high because it's given on the day of birth and most people don't know that it is even dumb.
I mean, I do think that the initial marketing or how this vaccine caught on was... Can you imagine arguing with that in real time?
Like, my wife's gonna breastfeed, you don't need... What are you doing?
It's already over.
You can barely even get a sentence out of your mouth.
No, no, no.
Wait, what?
What?
My wife's gonna breastfeed.
It's okay.
you know, very important to the perceptions that people had about what this vaccine was addressing.
I mean, it's, you know, I think that now we're just learning more about HPV.
We're trying to educate parents that this is really against these cancers that are we might not see as often as, you know, some
It really is.
Now that we've tried to prove it, it really is.
We didn't have P values before, but now we really do.
So we really have to convince parents because we got those P values now.
No cancers, but really these are the only ways to prevent them.
I think will be, is an important turning point.
I think the question about whether- It also of course implies that every other cancer could in theory have a vaccine if we could just find the pesky virus that causes them.
that we can kind of change the schedule so that we can bring it down to the infant schedule, which would be, I think, maybe place less emphasis on HPV vaccination right before your child starts having sex.
These things are really that end up making it very taboo.
Those data are coming.
We want to make sure that this vaccine has efficacy that is long lasting enough
Efficacy would be what?
Seroprevalence?
So that we could bring it down to the infant schedule.
Bring it down to the infant schedule where every vaccine wants to be.
Where strict liability is not even a factor and there is an unlimited uptake of your product with very little oversight.
Stop lying!
It's gross.
before we actually go ahead and do that.
So we're hopeful.
The data look promising, but we just need a few more years before.
I thought she was a health decision scientist, but somehow or another, she's really up to date on the HPV trials, and HPV testing, and HPV experiments, and wow.
Stop lying!
I think we can actually practically do that.
We have a couple more minutes for discussion of solutions.
Any other things that we need to add on top?
I think one of the things that I would like to see, if we had the kind of research data that Seth has talked about, and we know what parental concerns are, doctors
as you just heard earlier, haven't seen these dreadful diseases.
And so we're training doctors where it is accepted the kids don't get these diseases, and vaccines is not high on how to train doctors to deal with the problem.
This school, as you know, is famous for Atul Gawande, who has checklists for surgery and checklists for all kinds of things that are not checklists that you tick off, but they're points where
It tells you how to deal when you hesitate to move to the next point.
I would love to see, with the basis of the evidence that we hope is acquired, that every doctor and every person in the doctor's office that meets with parents that have to vaccinate kids will just run through a checklist so they know how not to offend people, how not to dictate to them, and how to engage them in actively understanding why it's good to do this.
Rick, can we do this?
I mean, it's difficult, exactly as Seth said.
It's very difficult because of time issues.
The amount of time that a pediatrician spends with his or her patients is getting reduced.
I think some of you may have experienced, if you have children, that the pediatrician now often just lists the vaccines, and then some other health care provider, like a nurse practitioner or a physician
Well, it's of course misleading parents because otherwise they would be using the words informed consent and talking about how and where the line of informed consent is and how to get parents across it, but they're not because Stop lying!
They're lying.
The assistant will come and minister the vaccine.
So actually it's sort of it's one step removed from even what Barry is saying.
These are physicians who don't see the disease and actually many of them don't.
administer the immunization.
So how would they be great advocates for those vaccines?
I think it's a very important problem.
And I think some of these solutions like one of my friends took a law school class with Cass Sunstein, setting up a clear educational program for for physicians and training on how to approach it, and really not leave it for example, for the end when everybody is rushed and time really is running
It's not informed consent if you can't say no, Catherine, and they don't want anybody to be able to say no.
No is not an option for this panel, right?
They have to convince people that no is a dumb choice.
So you're definitely right.
Information would increase hesitancy, but the object is not to give you informed consent.
Otherwise, informed consent is a two-sided coin.
One side says no.
sure it might really help things.
But it's difficult.
Maybe train the assistants as well.
Also, yeah.
I think that's true.
But I mean, really, just the fact that the physician is walking out as this is about to happen.
And some practices do it differently.
But in several, it's really sort of like almost an afterthought.
Here's the person who's going to administer the vaccines.
And that's the moment when the parent might say, wait, there's six shots here.
And what are they for?
And the person who's administering them.
So they're just laughing.
Yeah, I know, six shots.
It's crazy, right?
His job is really at that point not to engage in a very thoughtful, they don't have time, they could, but they don't have time to engage in a very thoughtful conversation.
It's just gross.
It is really just gross.
I also wonder if there's an opportunity to learn more about individual parents and
you know, what angle they're coming from, because there are so many aspects of vaccination that worry people.
So maybe to be able to triage that information a little bit so that when the provider intersects with that patient, to really get down to the bottom of, you know, what is concerning so you don't have to run down the whole thing and the whole gamut and actually instill more fear in the parents, which might, you know, actually happen if you're talking about autism and that didn't even register.
And so maybe trying to pre-screen, as parents, we have questionnaires that we fill out prior to the health care visit.
Maybe some of this could be included in that.
I want to make one point in terms of possible solutions.
And this was something that was driven home for me when I brought our first child in to get his vaccines.
At that point,
I was lucky to have tied my shoes that morning.
I hadn't slept.
I hadn't shaved.
My fly was probably down.
I was uniquely poorly disposed at that point to take in information about vaccines.
anything made me anxious.
If they said, you have 20 minutes left on the meter, when you're working on two hours sleep, that's going to make you anxious.
So I think one thing that could be interesting is moving the initiation of the vaccine discussion to prenatal visits.
When my wife and I went into prenatal visits, we had a notebook and a list of questions.
And then we would go home and talk about all the answers.
That was probably the last conversation we had about
health care after our child was born.
And that was a time in which we could take in information.
And another issue I think we've run into by not initiating that conversation in a health care setting until after the child is born is that parent has already been primed.
There are very few parents who get through their pregnancy and their birth without someone bringing up at some point the issue of vaccines.
To the extent that the public health community, the medical community can be the people who are priming it, I think that could be really helpful.
I also, because it's so difficult to... Yeah, I think it's important to point out what Catherine is pointing out in the chat, that really right now we've gone 10 years farther than this.
And we are now encouraging pregnant moms to take vaccines to protect their babies as opposed to probably where we were in 2014, which is, you know, don't use cosmetics and don't eat raw fish and don't eat unpasteurized cheese because your baby is in development.
And so that is part of the reason why I think it's important to go back to these videos that are 10 years old so that you can see that it hasn't been a shift that suddenly occurred because of a pandemic.
But it's been a steady, gradual shift from where we were when we were kids and where this messaging was when we were kids to the point now where young pregnant women are being encouraged by their healthcare providers to take a battery of vaccines, which is absolutely terrible.
Stop lying!
address concerns within a wellness appointment.
I think some pediatric offices, if they're big enough, could hold office hours like once a month or twice a month.
You don't need to make an appointment.
You can come in and they'll be
people from the practice there, or having one person in a practice that's a designated vaccine expert.
So instead of every pediatrician and every nurse practitioner feeling like, I need to be up on all of the crazy conspiracy theories that have popped up today, you can have one person.
And if a parent says, I'm concerned about this, you can say, OK, well, I'm going to put you in touch with our vaccine expert.
And make some time available to have those conversations.
Okay, now let's turn to- And what would the vaccine expert be?
Would it be like that lady Kim over there who works on health decision science, or would it be somebody who is an immunologist and who is capable of adequately explaining the pros and cons of it, or the potential dangers of it, or helping people exercise informed consent about what timeframe they do it on?
None of this is a question because it's not about biology.
It's about making sure that people believe that vaccines are 100% as good as airplanes in the wheel.
They are the best invention since buttered bread.
The questions, both from online and in studio.
And we'll start with question number one from online.
Thanks, Phil.
And thanks, everybody.
We're getting a lot of questions.
And I'm going to try to group them by topic so we can take as many as we can.
And of course, we're getting some on the autism question.
So why don't I just start with that?
Many people believe vaccinations are contributing to the alarming rise in autism.
This is making new parents fearful of having their children vaccinated.
It is so important to protect our children and population from these potentially devastating diseases.
But I have to say, having children of childbearing age and knowing several people struggling with autistic children, I have a concern that the way we are manufacturing our vaccines needs to be changed.
What are your thoughts on this?
Why would that guy take it?
The guy who wrote the book called The Panic Virus?
Why would he?
Why are they laughing about it?
Because it is very possible that what we're doing right now is not a very good way of augmenting anybody's immune system.
And in fact, we could just be using a hammer to pound in a screw to hold in a cabinet that's gonna fall down from the wall anyway.
All right, everybody else can jump in.
One of the really interesting things about the vaccine autism conspiracy theories is that if you look at it, you see the goalposts have consistently been moved down the field.
So initially a big concern was thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative that was in some but not all standard pediatric vaccines.
And each one of those was a hamster wheel, right?
Because once you start to say, oh no, it's the mercury, oh no, it's the aluminum, oh no, it's the thimerosal,
You are already assuming that, yeah, of course, these guys, you know, they already sequenced the human genome.
Of course, they know how to augment the immune system.
It's just that they were using the wrong combination of chemicals with that.
You know, it's not their fault.
Sometimes things work and sometimes things don't.
But if you can blame it on one poison or one adjuvant, then you immediately have this thing where, yeah, but everything else was fine.
Stop lying!
The fundamental principle of intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system has always been dumb, and that's why when that lady finished her question and they said, who's gonna answer it, they all laughed, because they know that's the damn truth.
That was removed, has now been removed for a decade.
The rates of autism have continued to climb.
So I hear some people now saying that it wasn't really removed, that that was a conspiracy perpetrated by the vaccine manufacturers.
Most people- Asking the wrong questions again.
Did they really remove thimerosal or not?
Oh, that's a conspiracy theory.
You're an idiot.
Don't believe that.
But now you have these new other concerns that it's too many too soon, that it's too... It couldn't possibly be that number one, it's intramuscular injection of any combination of substance with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
But then also the United States government and the FDA and Harvard and all these other shitheads have decided to push these things ever earlier into the childhood vaccine schedule, which is
kind of more or less mandated and very, very much legally protected from any liability.
And that that might not have any biological basis in reality, that might only have to do with these manufacturers wanting to be on that schedule and wanting to be early enough so that they're going regularly to the doctor and more likely that they will get high uptake of their product.
Because you just heard them bitch that once you start giving it to teenagers, it's kind of hard to get people to bite.
But if we could get it pushed to the childhood vaccine schedule, then we'd have guaranteed customers forever.
And we wouldn't need to market to them anymore because they would be stuck in this time when, as he described it, they're too tired and they're too worn out and they're too scared to listen to any information from their doctor anyway.
So if the doctor says, do it, they'll do it.
Don't you hear it?
young, that kids' immune systems aren't prepared for this.
And I think the only real answer is that every single piece of research, and I think autism out of all the adverse reactions has been studied more than almost any other because of the intense focus on it, every single piece of research has indicated that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever.
My personal view is that one of the reasons why there's so much anxiety about autism... They made it to their plane.
They're going to be here in a couple hours, so I'm super excited.
My family's coming back.
that feel very let down by their health care professionals and by the public health community.
And I think that's a very real thing.
And so this is something that they can react against.
And then it's sort of like throwing a pebble in a pond, and those concerns just ripple out.
But I think really the only answer to questions is we have a boatload of research, and it all says the same thing.
and it all says the same thing except for the stuff that's in the green book.
Those don't say the same thing, right?
What do you think?
The green book that Children's Health Defense doesn't sell as much as they sell is the Wuhan book, or the books of Robert Malone, or the books of Andrew Huff, or the Fauci book.
They push those a lot more than they push the green book, which is called Vax Unvax, and it's written by Brian Hooker.
But if you want the green book, the green book's got a lot of papers which disagree with these dipshits.
So I really agree completely with what Seth said.
In a way, we might have created this problem by stating that in our speed or in our desire for speed in getting parents to agree to the vaccines, I think many practitioners, myself included, will say these vaccines are safe.
And that is a correct statement.
But the secondary statement should also be, yes, there are some side effects.
And some of them are serious, but they're extremely rare.
But because that second sentence is not often spoken or maybe not even heard, you end up with parents who hear, on the one hand, that the medical community is completely denying any association between vaccines and autism.
And I think that that is a, to the extent that we can, it is a proven scientific fact.
But at the same time, they're being told that vaccines are safe.
And yet they hear of all sorts of instances where vaccines clearly could be and should be implicated, such as seizures or acute demyelinating diseases and various diseases that are very rare, but are probably causally related to vaccines.
See, the problem with this is that the parents are actually well aware of how
Their predisposition to assuming that vaccine injury is so rare it's almost indetectable sets them up for not attributing anything to the vaccine.
And parents are aware of that.
Parents have a gut feeling about what that would do.
That would be like sitting across from the parent of a beautiful teenage girl who goes out every night with her friends until one in the morning and comes back with different guys in different sports cars every night.
And you're sitting on the porch with those parents and they say, Oh, we trust her.
She's goes out every night till one o'clock, but I'm sure she's not doing anything that we wouldn't want her to do.
It's just as dumb.
It's just as naive.
It's just as stupid as sitting there saying that, ah, vaccines don't hurt anybody.
And so you sit there listening to this doctor say this stuff, and you realize as a parent that if you believe what you say you believe, then if there was a signal, you wouldn't see it.
You know that, right?
that if your limited spectrum of understanding only involves seizures that are closely correlated in time with the injection, allergic reactions that are closely correlated in time with the injection, or very specific list of things that the manufacturer has provided, you are full of shit!
And so the language that we use to try to convince patients to accept the vaccines that are extremely safe, but not 100% safe, may have led to some of these problems.
Let's turn to the audience here.
Questions from you about vaccines and hesitancy.
I got something in the mail.
It's a little envelope that has Scooby Snacks on the outside, you open it up, and then out came this, which is pretty freaking cool.
They know the rhyme, and it's just really cool.
or a person who smokes, who doesn't smoke.
Things that I can actually see in my community.
That might help me understand how safe it is.
So we struggle at the other end of things, which is to get a new vaccine through the incredibly thick levels of phase one trials for safety, phase two trials, larger numbers of people, for safety and showing correlates of protection, and then
to take the original polio vaccine, run in 1.8 million children to see what the adverse effect ratios were.
So there are very few vaccines where serious life-threatening effects that we're giving in this country are of the order of more than one.
He said correlates of protection, I think, not correlates of infection.
But yeah, it's all the same language.
They're developing it from many, many decades.
Per million children.
If a kid doesn't get a sore arm from some of the vaccines, it means we're not stimulating the inflammatory response that helps get a good immune response.
So kids having a sore arm and crying is not what we would call a severe adverse effect, and it may be beneficial.
There are these rare cases of acute reactions that are unexplained.
And there is a system called VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Effects, where every batch of every commercial vaccine
is categorized such that anyone who has an adverse effect, doctor or patient, doesn't have to be proven, can be phoned in to this network, and it is investigated, and we keep score on that from all the kids that are vaccinated.
So we have numbers on the number of adverse effects, severe and not so severe.
I have no idea how many kids are not wearing seatbelts that I could compare it with, but it's a great question.
I mean, one example I sometimes use is every year there are people who are killed because they're wearing seatbelts, because it ends up crushing their sternum.
And yet, I don't think anyone would say, well, because of this infinitesimal percent, I'm not going to wear a seatbelt anymore.
Or another thing I sometimes tell parents is you're more likely to get in a car accident on the way to your doctor's appointment than you are for your child to have an adverse effect.
Because I think you're right, one in a million is sort of meaningless when a parent is trying to think of that, so.
Other questions from the audience?
Down here.
Hi, thank you.
My name is Vicky.
I'm a fourth year medical student and an MPH student here at Harvard.
When you mentioned the latest vaccine conspiracy theories, I was reminded of an article that was shared recently with me by a member of the non-medical community.
One of the latest conspiracy theories, which was that the CDC has covered up reports that there was a 300 times greater risk of autism developing in African-American boys.
Oh, it's the Brian Hooker study.
It's not 300 times.
It was only like
30 times or three times.
I think it was three times.
And so she's already full of shit and she's already spinning in the hamster wheel and it's already right where we are in 2014.
Do you see it?
Do you see it now?
As opposed to the general population from MMR vaccines.
And even though we might be able to critique the scientific validity of what or whatever of these results, how can we be sensitive to the concerns of communities that have historically been marginalized and have historically had a relationship of mistrust with the medical community?
Rick laughing again oh my gosh laughing it's so freaking funny it's an excellent question I think I don't think there's an easy answer to this one so did the CDC cover it up or not of course they did they had a whistleblower we know his name we saw the data he was recorded on a phone call
Brian Hooker drove all across the United States to meet with him personally to get the data.
They covered it up.
They took the racial data out of the report in order that that would not be found.
And they're just laughing?
They're not going to acknowledge that that occurred?
Do you see where we are, ladies and gentlemen?
This has been going on for a lot longer than 2020 when Rand Paul and Tony Fauci argued in front of the Senate to cover up the Scooby-Doo.
The Scooby-Doo is part of this right here.
This, when this didn't work, when this kind of shit doesn't work, you pull something like the Scooby-Doo, where you tell people that there's a pandemic, you murder people and lie about it in order to make sure that this childhood vaccine schedule never finds the scrutiny it needs in order to be exposed as the criminal enterprise that it is.
This was a September 15, 2014 forum at the University of Harvard.
We need a new consensus about transfection in healthy humans being always criminally negligent, RNA not being able to pandemic, and the vaccine schedule in the USA was a criminal enterprise before the pandemic.
If you liked what you saw, please go to GigaOMBiological.com and try to find a way to support the stream.
This is a family of five who's sacrificing everything to try and get this over the finish line.
Not for me, but for my kids and yours.
If you want to talk to us, go to GigaOMBiological... sorry, GigaOM.bio, which is...
Get my mouse over there, which is the second link.
And then if you want to share this after broadcast, please share the links at stream.gigaom.bio because that's what we pay for.
And again, I hope to see you tomorrow.
My family's coming back.
I'm really excited.
I think I'll be up very early and very happy to hit the button for a long time to come.
This has been a long ride on the Ark all by myself with Ruby, but we made it.
And I'm very happy to say that I didn't lose a leg or anything like that.
Thank you very much for coming.
I'll see you again tomorrow.
I'm going to film the dog's reaction to the car pulling up so I can share it with you because Ruby is going to go bananas.
And for a very brief period of time, she's going to exhibit the spinnies of a small puppy dog because she gets so happy to see her mama.
Thanks very much for all the support, all the letters.
Cindy, thank you.
Rocky, thank you.
Rocky, maybe send me an email if you don't mind and you hear this.
And I will follow you later today, Zard.
Sorry, I've just been checking in really quick over there.
I'll definitely follow you.
Don't worry, I'm there.
Just trying to get into a groove of daily broadcasting before 11.11.
So I'm gonna try and start hitting the window.
Always trying for 10.10, but a lot of times I miss 10.10.
But if I'm not on time at 10.10, I'm going to try to hit the button before 11.11.
And the latest will be 11.11.
So I'm going to try and make this a thing.
It's kind of the least I can do for the supporters that are supporting me and try to provide a little regular appearance that you can try to book or be aware of.
And then maybe we can add a Friday fire tonight.
We're gonna fire up the fireplace, put a camera on it and just hang out and watch the chat, talk to one another, maybe enjoy a little sounds of kids on the trampoline and maybe a glass of wine.
or a beer for me.
Thanks very much guys, I'll see you later.