-- by Dr. Simone Gold, 01/03/2021, video posted on Rumble (56:08)
(Taken down from YouTube)
On January 3rd, 2021, Emergency physician Dr. Simone Gold gave this gobsmacking talk on the Great Awakening show about the breathtaking skullduggery that was coordinated worldwide across governments and health agencies against the drug hydroxychloroquine, the ordering of needless masks and lockdowns, and now the mandating of experimental vaccines.
Read also:
-- White Paper On Experimental Vaccines For Covid-19, by America's Frontline Doctors.
-- Frontline Doctors: Experimental vaccines are 'not safer' than Covid-19, at FreeRepublic.com.
Transcript:
(00:33) I come to you tonight with lot of information about the experimental vaccines regarding Covid-19. I think all of this information will be brand new to you -- I know this was brand new to me. Over the last few months, even as a board-certified emergency physician, I did not know what I'm about to share with you. And I come before you on behalf of America's Frontline Doctors, which is a volunteer physician organization that we started specifically to combat the serious and life-threatening disinformation campaign that has really taken over America and the entire globe. It's very, very scary stuff. I've been a doctor for a long time; before me my father was a doctor. I've never seen anything like this where you have groups of physicians and scientists and government bureaucratic agencies essentially lying to the American people and people across the world. And there are many, many examples.
(01:36) One example I'll give you that is the National Institute of Health right now has as a policy recommendation for patients with Covid-19 stating that, unless you're in a hospital requiring oxygen, there's no actual treatment for you -- that is a complete falsehood. In most of the non-first-world countries, there's plenty of treatments easily available: Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, here in America -- if you can find a doctor to prescibe those medications -- or Budestinide. There's many options; this disinformation is why we came public.
(02:10) When we started to speak out around July [2020] -- a little bit sooner; we got a lot of attention starting in July -- we were promptly (as the pastor said) de-platformed and it doesn't bother me so much. I know the information. It bothers me tremendously on behalf of all of humanity -- this is a crime against humanity. There's a physician in the Netherlands who's bring a lawsuit in The Hague calling it that -- a crime against humanity. There is a lot of information you haven't heard.
(02:35) There was a Senate testimony about a month ago. A bunch of doctors went and testified -- I believe Senator Johnson is the chairman. You can find it on our website: AmericasFrontlineDoctors.com. But the doctors testified that the vast majority of deaths in America would not have ever happened. I start with that because you must understand the magnitude of the lie, to understand what they're trying to tell you about these experimental vaccines. So we need to just kind of go through that for a little bit.
(03:15) I know some of you heard this first sentence which I said this morning, but the disinformation was apparent since the beginning. We call this illness Covid-19, but its real name should be after the location from where it arose, which is Wuhan, China. And if you remember it was called the Wuhan virus for a while -- a month or so -- before we discovered the Chinese Communist Party didn't like that name. They set putting a lot of pressure on media and politicians to change it, and they started calling it the coronavirus. It actually is a coronavirus, but that became very confusing to doctors and scientists because there are seven coronaviruses -- this is just number seven. So we used to use the word coronavirus sometimes on our charts, when we meant a common cold. A person would come to me with a common cold and I would sometimes write coronavirus on the chart as the diagnosis. It was pretty standard for doctors and scientists to call it the coronavirus, so they had to change the name again and it became known by its acronym: coronavirus disease 2019, or Covid-19.
(04:21) I have to start there, because it was never a racist or weird thing to call it the Wuhan virus. There are so many diseases that are named after the location from which they arise. There's Zika and Ebola; there's Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS), Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme disease, German measles, Spanish flu -- the list is endless. So you have to understand that deception was there from the very beginning. So that was the first big lie.
(04:53) The next big popular well-known lie was the maligning of this common ordinary, cheap, safe medication called hydroxychloroquine. Those of you who have travelled abroad, who have taken mission trips for example, or anybody in the military, are quite familiar with this drug. Doctors would just give it out like candy. I was going to take a holiday to Africa about 20 years ago and I was a medical student at the time, and they just handed me the pills -- here you go. I was never asked any questions. It was a big fat nothing-burger -- taking hydroxychloroquine. All of a sudden we started hearing his doctors say that hydroxychloroquine was unsafe. You can't understand what's going on with the lies until you understand what an enormous this is.
(05:33) Hydroxychloroquine is over-the-counter in much of the world. It's taken in Many African nations -- they call it Sunday-Sunday medicine because you take it every Sunday. People keep it in their pocket the way Americans might keep Tylenol in their purses. It's absolutely ordinary stuff. It was over-the-counter really in any country which had malaria, or any country that had citizens that would visit malaria countries on holiday. It was over-the-counter in France. The only reason it wasn't over-the-counter in America is there wasn't a consumer demand.
(06:04) In America we use hydroxychloroquine for two main reasons -- lupus and rheumatoid arthritis -- and also for malaria for people going on holiday. But generally it's lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and for those illnesses patients regularly see physicians so they can get a prescription for it. That's why it was never over-the-counter here, not because it was unsafe. It's been FDA-approved for 65 years. We give it babies, we give it to children, we give it to pregnant women, we give it to nursing mothers, we give it to the elderly, and we give it to the immune-compromised. Those last two categories take this medication for decades. There's never a pretense that it's not safe. That's the drug you've been hearing about for nine or ten months, now, telling you it's unsafe. It's an incredible lie of incredible proportions. Once you understand that, you will be suspicious of everything that follows.
(06:52) So that's where I found myself. There I was in the emergency department treating patients as they came in with Covid-19. And once we had the rapid test so I can confirm the diagnosis, my first patient who I needed to give hydroxychloroquine and zinc to, I did it, and even knowing the kind of the controversy, I really didn't think twice about it. It was fine. I gave it to her and I actually called her the next day. She was so much better; she herself got better within about 12 hours; in about 48 hours she was essentially completely well. This completely matched what I had read in the scientific literature. I knew many doctors had done this. I've read many journals -- it was completely consistent.
(07:29) What was really shocking and completely inconsistent was my medical director, who calls me the next day and threatens to fire me for doing this. This treatment was, even as I describe this moment to you, it's shocking to me. I remember the case, the situation, the conversation. He's saying he's going to fire me, and I asked "why would you fire me over this". He said, "well, I don't think it works". I said, "well then don't prescribe it. You haven't read the science the way I have. I know it works. You'll change your mind in a couple of months when you get a little wiser. But why would you get involved, with you knowing me treating a patient? You do your thing, I do my thing, that's how medicine is practiced. We are licensed as individuals; it's actually against the law to have what's called a corporate practice of medicine where corporation practice is for you. It has to be the individual doctor's physician. That's why patients go to multiple doctors, right?"
[Applause]
(08:22) And the worst part of the conversation was not that he was ignorant that the drug worked, but his reasons for saying that he was going to fire me if I did this. And that reason -- which he put in writing because he wasn't so smart -- he said it was because the biggest payer at that hospital, which is a large insurance company that everyone here has heard of that's back on the West Coast mainly, didn't want us to prescribe it. They were blocking it. So that payer insurance company was pressuring the hospital that their doctor shouldn't do it. It had nothing to do with whether it was good or bad for the patient; it all had to do with money and payment which, honestly, I still can't believe I'm relating this story; it was really unbelievable. So he said I could never do that again. I said, "well good luck with that."
(09:06) So it kept happening, about four or five times, and I kind of knew that my days at that particular hospital were going to be numbered. I mean, how long is this going to last? So I started looking online for other physicians like myself. I knew I couldn't be the only one. And I found the most amazing group of doctors, really just brilliant intelligent compassionate kind, and we got together and we called ourselves the America's Frontline Doctors.
(09:30) What I felt needed to happen was we needed to break this disinformation cycle to which Americans were all being subjected to, and people across the world as well. So I set up to do something called the White Coat Summit, which was an entire day of education. We brought doctors and we brought social media influencers -- young people know them as YouTubers. So we brought a whole bunch of YouTubers and a whole bunch of doctors we brought them to Washington.
(09:53) We did seven hours of education and we laid out all the facts, very dispassionately. Here are the facts on hydroxychloroquine; here are the facts on lockdowns; here are the facts on masks; here's the facts on schools and kids transmission; here's the facts for the elderly; here's the facts on other treatments other than hydroxychloroquine. And we did that.
(10:13) In the middle of that day, we took a break and we walked over to the Supreme Court and that was the video that got 20 million views. It gets 20 million views, not because I can sing like Beyonce, but because human beings recognize truth, we have something inside of us. [Applause] I really emphasize that point because you can only get to 20 million views if people say "Oh my gosh you got to listen to this, you got to listen to this." You recognize the truth, you recognize the truth.
(10:44) So I guess after a while Big Tech caught up with the fact that this was like breaking the internet, and within an hour all of the platforms censored us simultaneously. So it's essentially a monopoly. We're talking about Youtube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, all went down immediately. The President had retweeted us, the President's son had retweeted us.
(11:05) And from that moment on everything really kind of changed. I did get fired from both of my hospitals. It is a scary experience to get fired especially when you've worked as long as I have to be a board-certified emergency physician, and that's what I do. I'm a mom, I have kids; it's not a comfortable feeling to be fired. You don't know what the future holds.
(11:22) On the other side of this, which is now several months, it's really been a blessing, because we doctors have been able to come forward and speak freely and help other doctors who've been put in this situation. There are several of my peers, several doctors in the America's Frontline Doctors group that have faced tremendous personal pushback. There's a fellow right now in Oregon who refused to force the mask. He won't wear it and he won't force his staff to wear it. If you want to wear it, that's fine. He was public about it. So the state of Oregon actually yanked his medical license.
(11:56) And when he first told me this, I thought this can't be possible because you may not know, but I'm also an attorney and it was impossible to conceive of an event like that happening without due process. I mean the whole thing about law, if anybody's been involved in the law at all, it's all about process. You've got to go through the process. You can't just pull someone’s license. You have to have hearings and phone calls and papers filed and all that. I really just thought, oh he missed his deadlines, but it was true. They actually just summarily pulled his license. It's unbelievable. So we're going to help him win; we're going to file lawsuits and all that, but what I'm saying is it comes to some degree of cost. But if you ask him, he'll tell you he's so much happier that he did this. [Applause] He just said that he couldn't bow to tyranny.
(12:45) So I just want to point out how you face that little tyranny on a day-to-day basis: where you can go to Florida but you can't go anywhere in California without a mask, except that I do. I go without a mask as much as I possibly can. You have to give moments like that and push up against tyranny. And it's not just for you, to make you stronger, it's also a role model that's sent to other people. Do you feel that? [Applause] And I say that because a lot of us are very good-hearted people who have to fight sometimes on our own behalf. You do this for the other person who has to see you without the mask so that they feel empowered.
(13:32) So I want to run through some information, and the goal is to teach you what's coming in terms of these experimental vaccines. And I want to start for a few minutes reviewing the lies about what's going on with Covid generally, then we'll turn to that. And this'll be a lot of interesting stuff.
(13:59) First, when I first started this, I just wanted to have patients. I couldn't believe that patients were being denied this drug, and I could sense we were not going to be able to fix this, from the government health policy position, because the doctors themselves have 'drunk the Kool-Aid' and now are not willing to prescribe this drug, and tried hard to get the policy changed so that hydroxychloroquine could become over-the-counter in our country just like it is in much of the world. That would have been the best solution for everyone because it would have taken the decision making out of the hands of the government. You could have decided for yourself if you needed this medicine, and the advantage of having that pill in your possession means the majority of people can stop living in fear. That was the best solution, but we were unsuccessful in getting that.
(14:47) So I did the next best thing, along with Frontline Doctors, and we made hydroxychloroquine available for the entire nation by going to our web site, then you could consult with a medical doctor, and whether or not you had Covid, you could get a prescription and they would mail it to you. That was the first thing we did. And I felt so strongly about it, just because that's a possible way to counteract the fear. But I learned pretty early that this fight wasn't the virus, it was the fear. That is my response to the fear -- to give people a path to the solution. Now the fear has led to people, who just want to lead normal lives -- they're either consumed with fear or with the weirdness of this whole situation. That is what I think is leading to people making a fundamentally irrational decision to rush headlong into experimental medication. They're just trying to get their lives back. And we've been told if you get the a vaccine, we can get your life back.
(15:53) I have to give you the bad news; this is definitely not what's going to happen. Whether you take a shot or don't take a shot, it's not going to happen. Dr. Fausi has gone public already saying, along with many others, that this so-called vaccine -- experimental biological agent -- doesn't stop transmission. You're going to keep wearing the mask, social distancing, and it changes nothing. Once you hear that, you really have to ask the question of why you put yourself in that situation. So that's the starting point.
(16:28) Let's talk about what we know about Covid-19. First of all (I can't be deplatformed here) [applause] let's just talk about the numbers. What are the chances you'll survive Covid if you should get it? If you're under 20, according to the CDC -- which is not known for its honesty -- the survival rate is 99.997%. Why are we talking about anything in that group; there's nothing to talk about. For ages 20-49 the survival rate is 99.98%; for 50-69 the survival rate is 99.5% (and that's with no treatment). And if you're over age 70, the survival rate approaches 95% with no treatment. Now with treatment, it's even better than that. If you take early treatment, this is essentially either asymptomatic or very mildly symptomatic or completely recoverable.
(17:52) The people who die from Covid-19 are people who are kind of destined to die anyway. (People of faith understand that life and death go hand in hand.) My father had an expression, that pneumonia is an old man's best friend. And that means that pneumonia is also the way we exit this world. If you're kind of at the end point of you life, Covid-19 can take you out -- that's a fact. So can a common cold, I've seen it. I once had a patient who died essentially from a nose bleed. So anything can take you out if you're frail. And Covid-19 is in that category. Overwhelmingly the deaths from Covid-19 are nursing home patients. And I have to mention this, because if it was truly the "intent" to save lives, people would not have thrown away our frail elderly. The politicians who are telling you to do this thing over here have no problem throwing away the lives of the very frail elderly over here.
[Applause]
(19:15) I don't know how many of you were watching the coronavirus task force. I was watching it every day when I wasn't at work, and I remember watching Governor Coumo and he was saying we had to protect the elderly, we had to protect the elderly, and I said 'that's great'. Then one day, literally out of the blue, he made this rule that patients from nursing homes, who went to the hospital for Covid-19 but would survive, and were then discharged from the hospital, could be sent back to the nursing home, and the nursing home was not allowed to ask if they were Covid-positive or Covid-negative, and yet they could completely co-mingle with the other patients. Now to remind you, that Navy [hospital] ship that was stationed off of New York City and the Jacob Javitts Center was virtually empty.
(20:00) Now what is amazing about, as an emergency physician, I know all the problems -- you don't have a bed here, you don't have a bed there. But it was a complete lie: there were thousands and thousands of empty beds between the Jacob Javitts Center and the Navy ship. I remember watching it and thinking: that is unbelievable. He was an executioner. So I don't believe anything someone like that has said. Shocking!
(20:34) So I started all of that because you have to understand that the amount of lies are just so enormous. Are you all familiar with The Lancet -- the controversy with that? Okay, this is a good one. The Lancet is probably the world's most famous medical journal, New England Journal of Medicine probably second-most, JAMA third. Around April 2020, The Lancet published a study that concluded that hydroxychloroquine wasn't safe. This threw the world into a tizzy. Based on this article, the group stopped hydroxychloroquine trials, the European Union stopped allowing hydroxychloroquine. That was the reason the headlines trashed the president, calling calling it snake oil. They had the cover of The Lancet saying it was bad.
(21:26) Now The Lancet study that said it was bad had 90,000 people in it over five continents, and it just didn't seem to make sense. So there was a group of independent doctors who looked at this data and concluded: no way we have 90,000 patients on five continents and nobody ever hear of this thing -- it wasn't credible. So these doctors got together and they forced the issue. And The Lancet ended up retracting the study, which is once in a generation or once in a lifetime sort of event. You can't be published in The Lancet by accident -- there are many, many layers -- it simply can't happen. It was a complete fraud that was published. But the damage was done, because all across the world the hydroxychloroquine trials were halted and it was very badly maligned -- that's where we're coming from. We know that was fraud, they admitted it was fraud; you can go to the internet and type in 'Lancet study hydroxychloroquine' and it will pop up 'retracted'. That was like level number one of the question -- the scientists themselves were interrupted.
(22:32) Lie number two, the media. The media lied. How do we know they were lying, and not just misinformed or ill informed themselves. Well, when it was retracted, they buried the story of its being retracted -- you have to really struggle to find that information -- that's very dishonest. And then there's corruption at the state level and federal level, but we'll save that for another day.
(22:55) So let's talk about what I call experimental biological agents -- I'll use that phrase. Definitely you should not be calling it the Covid-19 vaccine. The reason is, whatever you call it, it's experimental, it's not been approved as a vaccine. It is currently in its investigational stage, it's been approved by the FDA, but in an investigational stage only -- AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson. That's very important legally. If you're injured by something, and it's in the experimental stage, it's adjudicated by a different standard. So what is the potential problem with using a biological agent?
(23:45) The first and most obvious is it's a brand new technology. The first two that are coming to market use something called mRna technology, which has never been used before as vaccines. This is what would appear a lot of the more concerning and flamboyant issues, is because people are very worried that this is brand new mRna technology. I don't want to go down that path, but what I can say is I don't want to be the first person to take a brand new thing when it comes to medicine. You don't have to be a genius to say that. So that's problem number one.
(24:19) Problem number two is, there's been a tremendous failure with a previous coronavirus vaccine. This is not well known, but there are multiple coronaviruses out there. For example, in 2002, there was an epidemic -- much smaller -- of SARS-Cov1. What we have now is SARS-Cov2. So SARS-Cov1 and SARS-Cov2 were both called novel coronaviruses. I've never understood that, because this coronavirus is 78% identical to SARS-Cov1, and that's why it's called SARS-Cov2 -- they're 78% the same. The prior coronavirus that the vaccine company made, they have failed. They can't do it safely in human beings, and I'll talk about that later. But just note that we've not been able to successfully overcome the human body hurdles that making the vaccine for the coronavirus has put up.
(25:22) Number three, there's no independent published animal studies. One of the companies says it did do animal studies, but they haven't published any data on it. So there's a complete rush to put this to market, and you simply cannot do this safely without published data on animal studies, because animals often would die at end. And so with that, we don't know if its safe for humans.
(25:49) Problem number four: known complications. One of the most commonly known complications of vaccines is something called 'antibody-dependent enhancement' -- also called 'immune enhancement', and also 'pathogenic priming'. What this is, instead of providing immunity, it causes a person to overreact in a negative way if they should become exposed to the virus. This thing called antibody-dependent enhancement, although you haven't heard of it, is well known to scientists, and has its own Wikipedia page. This is not fringe, it exists and it is real. The biggest problem with antibody-dependent enhancement, we see this with prior coronavirus vaccines. When they were doing a study on SARS-Cov1 back in 2005, they came up with a vaccine, and they gave it to the ferrets and with two doses once a day and the ferrets did fine after the first dose; they did fine after the second dose. Later, they exposed them to the coronavirus SARS1 in the wild, and the ferrets died. That's why SARS-Cov1 vaccine never came to market. Antibody-dependent enhancement. You can find all this information and discussion on AmericasFrontlineDoctors.com - vaccine information. Also on the StopMedicalDiscrimination.org site as well -- everything is well presented and referenced.
(27:24) The known complications of antibody-dependent enhancement, and also some of the things you see on the news, like neurologic problems like transverse myelitis, Bell's palsy, etc. These are known complications from vaccines that already exist.
(27:40) There's also a lot of issues with unknown vaccinations. I think what's going on is there's a complete lack of respect for what you don't know. You don't know what you don't know until you discover it. These are the things parents teach their children -- you don't know enough, right. So what are the potential unknowns? Well something that I learned this year, just in the last few months, and I was shocked, and I want to see a show of hands here from anybody who's heard of it. Has anyone here heard of potential fertility problems with this vaccine? That's amazing, guys, because I did not know this myself until about two months ago. So I had to look into it.
(28:30) There's a question if this vaccine -- a biological agent, to say -- affects the syncytiotrophoblast, which is a layer on the placenta. Now it does seem to do that when you're sick with Covid-19. The problem is the mRna vaccines kind of mimic how the Covid-19 acts indefinitely. While Covid-19 could be bad for the placenta and the baby if you get it in the middle of a pregnancy, eventually Covid-19 goes away and you go about your life and then you're good. There's a question if this type of experimental agent does that same thing to the syncytiotrophoblast of the placenta, and it would do it indefintely. This is not a conspiracy; as a scientist, I'm telling you we don't know. Scientists better than me... There were two guys in Europe, ex-Pfizer executives, that complained about this and filed a petition with the European equivalent of the FDA, saying you've got to not approve this as an emergency experimental vaccine. Because we haven't answered the question of antibody-dependent enhancement and we haven't answered the question on the placenta. So it's dangerous to release it. And you have to put that together with the risk of even having this problem? Certainly in younger women, women under under 50, the survival rate according to the CDC is 99.98%. For that reason America's Frontline Doctors feel very strongly that you cannot offer this to women of childbearing age. We put that into the category of things we don't know -- we simply don't know what the effect will be on the placenta.
(30:17) Another fact that is very concerning is that pharmaceuticals who manufacture these experimental biological agents are immune from all liability. This group here probably knows that. I'm not saying they have a negative motive; I'm thinking mostly they have a profit motive. I'm not saying they're trying to hurt people with Covid. What I am saying is that if you know you could get sued for millions of dollars every time something goes wrong, you need to be really, really careful. You're a little less careful if you're you know you're going to be shielded from liability -- completely shielded. But people ask me whether I'm going to take the vaccine, would I recommend my children take the vaccine. I say it's really irrational to give a brand new, untested, untried technology from a company a company that's completely shielded from immunity, when on the other hand I've got a drug that's 65 years old, been given billions of times and is completely safe for all of these test groups.
[Applause]
(31:15) Now those are the safety concerns of these experimental biological agents. What are the concerns regarding the effectiveness. What was super-shocking is there's no proof that this biological agent actually stops the transmission. That must be the punchline of a joke, you say -- "let's make a vaccine that doesn't actually stop transmission." I couldn't believe it. But the Surgeon General said twenty days ago on 'Good Morning America' that it's well documented now -- it's not known to stop transmission! I think what's going to happen, it's kind of putting people into an asymptomatic carrier situation -- people have taken the vaccine, and now they're testing positive for Covid-19. Well are they going to test positive forever? What does that mean? They've been selling that bill of goods of asymptomatic transmission and that seems to be moot, but if you're going to have hundreds of hundreds of millions running around at a positive low level, what does that mean? Why are we doing that? Another problem with doing that is that they can game the numbers. You've given this vaccine to 100 million people, and now thay all test positive for Covid-19, they're going to tell us that the cases are raging and we can never relax. It's unbelievable. There's no proof that this is actually reducing mortality, certainly from the levels of non-lethality that we've seen, it's hard to demonstrate that there's any real advantage. The odds of dying from this are already incredibly low.
(33.13) Third question about effectiveness is we simply don't know, even if it was effective and not dangerous, we don't know how long it lasts. In other words, are you going to asked to take this once in a lifetime, or are you going to be asked to take this yearly like influenza. We don't know -- those questions are not answered.
(33.34) I keep referencing the fact that we need to call by this its proper name. Never talk about this without the word 'experimental'. That's critical.
(33.50) One of the problems that we doctors are concerned about is this antibody-dependent enhancement potential, which hasn't been answered. If you're going to run around and give this vaccine to a bunch of healthy people, you have to be really, really sure. Taking a vaccine is very different than taking a drug for a disease. If you have a disease, you're certainly willing to take more risk to get rid of the disease. But you don't give it to healthy people. Now what's going to happen if you give this vaccine to 100 million people that are otherwise healthy, and they do have an antibody-dependent enhancement reaction, because you haven't ruled it out, and they're exposed to the virus in the wild, and 30% of them drop. What if, for example, you've given that vaccine to all your health care workers, you've given the vaccine to all of you military, and all your police officers. I find this shocking as a public policy matter that we would even consider giving this -- giving anything -- to our healthy first responders and front-line people who defend our country. It's so shocking to accept that kind of risk. Again, I'm not saying this is definitely going to happen; I'm just saying that based on a prior SARS coronavirus vaccine, there is definite concern about antibody-dependent enhancement. This particular virus is very low lethality. Should we give it to healthy people not knowing the answer to that question? It's far too risky in my opinion from a national security perspective.
[Applause]
(35.58) I gave this talk only once before, only two weeks ago, and I approached the Black community. I'd like to just talk straight and openly. I was well aware as a physician that African-Americans and other black and brown minority persons had a natural antipathy toward vaccines. And I wanted to give them the science behind it. I want to go deeper into that issue. So let me share some of these things, but I don't know most of these things prior to this year. Many of you have heard of the Tuskegee experiment -- we all know that. But there's a lot more than that. I was curious as to why the antipathy is so strong. So let me give you some examples of where vaccines have gone wrong for black and brown people. With the rubella vaccine, race and ethnicity were shown to affect the antibody responses at a higher level compared with Europeans. With the measles virus they also had that same experience. With pertussis, also the same. With the [in ree??] they also had the same problem with the measles. [Hamas??] and influenza also had the same difference in their response. And the hepatitis vaccine also had similar differences in response among races -- specifically white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis than non-white boys, when they gave the hepatitis vaccine to babies. Now literally as a physician I did not know this. Here we have examples -- well documented in the scientific literature -- of six different vaccines that were affecting people differently based on their races.
(37:50) So why is this important? Because when you read the language that the government is putting out about how to prioritize the vaccine (the experimental biological agent), they are making an overt and covert attempt to push this heavily on blacks and browns. I'm going to give you some specific quotes, because it is just shocking. The CDC is telling the public at large that getting an experimental vaccine is a good thing. But is additionally telling black people that getting the vaccine is racial justice and it's an advantage. Now this is from the Center for Health Security dot org: Enter framework for Covid-19 vaccine allocation distribution in the U.S. This is the government's words: "Getting the vaccine early is racial justice." And I just have to say as a scientist I found it bizarre that we're talking about racial justice -- either something works scientifically or it doesn't. There might be racial differences in terms of social groups. But how is it racial justice to sign up first for an experimental biological agent that we don't know.
[Applause]
(39:40) In the exact same document they say: "The ultimate safety of the approved vaccine is not knowable until it has been administered to millions of people. It is possible that certain adverse effects may occur more frequently in certain population subgroups, but may not be apparent until millions have been vaccinated. Pharmaco-vigilance tracking case systems will provide critical information that inform adjustments to the allocation." That literally is in the same document as "let's give it the black folks first". (You can't make this stuff up.) "Racial and ethnic minorities, tribal, incarcerated, under-resourced, people that work in school setting, and nurses, and must prioritize Blacks and Latinos to reflect fairness and justice."
(40:41) Now I just find it so incredibly offensive. We know exactly who falls from Covid-19. It's nursing home patients; it's people with 2.6 co-morbidity per person is average; it's people over 75 living in their homes. This is who should get the vaccine first -- if you believe the vaccine is safe and effective. That's it. And I feel very offended on this, because the people who are getting protected first are my friends, all the black nurses that I work with in the ER. I spent my whole career in the inner city. There's no actual risk to the health care worker. We know where the risk is. It's the 80-year-old woman living in a nursing home, a man who's living in a nursing home -- bad heart, bad lungs, diabetes, obesity -- those are the high risk. It's not your 45-year-old nurse; it's not your 35-year-old cop.
41:49) Now in case you didn't believe that, you go further into these documents, and you find the language where they talk about hardening the Black community by understanding their "vaccine hesitancy", based on prior issues of prior vaccine testing. But they have actual policies. In HHS.gov: 'Strategy for Distributing Covid-19 Vaccine', they said we have to focus on hardening key populations of community to insure maximum vaccine effectiveness. And they talk about how to manipulate the media and silence opposition to it. And then they persuade famous handsome celebrities to take the vaccine -- Obama being one of them -- and it's very clear what's going on.
(42:42) So I say to you as a scientist: Do you want to be first. If you want to be first, volunteer yourself for track-and-trace systems, enrolling yourself in a medical trial. I don't think I explained that clearly. If you take the vaccine, you're being enrolled in a pharmaco-vigilance tracking system. It means you've enrolled yourself in a medical trial, which is fine if you want to be a goodhearted individual, very altruistic, and want to enroll yourself in a medical trial: Fantastic! I can tell you as a physician that very few people do that, but if you want to do that, that's fine. But most people are not aware that that's what they're doing. This pharmaco-vigilance tracking system tracks you for two years. It's set up by the Department of Defense; it was handed over to Oracle and Google to put the data together. How is it that people want to sign up for this system on an experimental, and how is it that giving it to black people fair and racial justice? (Maybe someone smarter than me can figure that out.)
(43:45) Once you started reading these documents -- about what I considered as pure racism -- it kind of made it clear to me as to why we were hearing so much about racial issues with Covid-19. In my experience an an ER doctor, I didn't see any real racial issues at all. We saw white people, Latino people, and black people -- the whole lot. And basically if you were old and frail, and you got it, you were sick. But I never understood why racism and racial differences would be an issue. Now it's true that there are many areas where black people are disproportionately affected by Covid-19. For example, in New Orleans, Louisiana, where Blacks made up 31% of the population but they made up 71% of people admitted to the hospital with Covid-19. So on the Left, they were saying, this is because of racism. But when you look at the data, there does not yet appear -- and it never will appear -- to be a race-dependent risk factor. We know where these people live; it's diabetes and obesity primarily, and other serious medical problems. Now also living in a very crowded area, working in a very crowded area, the reason I don't think this is ever going to be a race problem, is things you just know by common sense. One, it's been all over the world -- all races. Second, it's in areas of the world where people have those same afflictions like diabetes, obesity, and other illnesses. And the group of risk factors such as living and working in tight quarters -- it's not black people who get it; it's people who live in those situations. So in Louisiana it was black people, but in the U.K. it was Middle Easterners and East Asians. So it doesn't matter what your race is, it matters only if you have those health-related risk factors.
(45:55) And of course the irony of saying this a racial problem is looking at the continent of Africa, or those of you who don't know it. The one continent that's been spared is Africa -- except South Africa, the rest of Africa. The death rate in Africa is extraordinarily low. In America, the death rates are in the 800 range per million. In India, the death rates are around 70 per million -- about 10% of the U.S. rate due to their very liberal hydroxychloroquine policy. In Africa, with some of the poorest places in the world -- no social distancing, no masks, no ICUs -- they have a death rate of 1% of the Western nations. One percent!
(46:48) Now I believe it's due to widely-available hydroxychloroquine; you can't explain it to any other reason. But even if there's another reason, you certainly can't this affects black people worse.
[Applause.]
(47:13) I didn't sign up for this immediately. I was a mom, an my friends were nurses and moms, so let's just wait a little bit and let's just see. So we doctors, when we got together about this, we decided to come out and state our opinion. A lot of people told us not to do that, but we thought it was really important. You have the CDC, the NIH, and the FDA -- all not helping you. So we came up with our recommendations about the vaccine, and they're pretty strong.
(47:50) Ultimately, America's Frontline Doctors stand as follows:
(47:54) If you're under age 20, the experimental vaccine is 'prohibited', in our opinion, absolutely prohibited. Because we don't know enough about the effects on fertility, and we do know this virus essentially does not affect young people -- essentially irrelevant.
(48:20) At age 20-50, if you're healthy, we 'strongly discourage'. There's a little debate in our group -- either 'strongly discourage', or 'prohibited'. I fell into the 'prohibited' category, but the majority of us said to 'strongly discourage' from age 20-50. "We strongly discourage the vaccine age 20-50 because of the exceedingly low risk of death from Covid, its unknown risk from the experimental vaccine in causing auto-immunity, its unknown risk of pathogenic priming antibody dependent enhancement, and there's an unknown risk of lifelong infertility." So age 20-50, we strongly discourage.
(48:50) From age 50-70, if you're healthy, we also say 'strongly discourage' for the same reasons. There's very low risk from Covid-19, there's an unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, unknown effect on the placenta.
(49:10) From age 50-70 and you have serious comorbid conditions, we say 'discourage'. We say that because we feel that the experimental vaccine is a higher risk than early prophylactic treatment with long-established medications, such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
(49:30) From age 70 and above, if you're healthy, we tell people you take your own personal risk assessment. We believe an experimental vaccine is less ideal than old established medications, but we leave that up to the person.
(49:45) Over age 70 serious comorbid conditions such as nursing homes, we also call it a personal risk assessment. We again stand with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin being safer in the population. But we don't think it irrational to take it if you're over 70 living a nursing home. We're not trying to mediate in all circumstances.
(50:08) We don't believe anybody at any age should be pressured, and we are concerned about persons over 70 -- who don't have advocates -- being pressured into this. We already know actually many cases like that.
(50:20) We also don't want people to be overly worried that we're saying it's definitely unsafe. We're not saying it's definitely unsafe, we're saying we don't know, and at least if you're over 70 with several medical conditions, you do have some risk of dying from this thing, so it's not fundamentally irrational to take it if you're advised to take it.
(50:42) But certainly under age 50, we fall as 'strongly discourage'. I myself would never let a woman of childbearing age take this -- I would fight tooth and nail -- under no circumstances until this placenta question is answered.
(51:01) I always like to leave people with a bit of a call to action. We intend at America's Frontline Doctors to fight the urge, that's sweeping the globe, to mandate people taking an experimental biological agent. This is a big fight we have on our hands. It's not really the government first we're concerned about; we're very concerned about private businesses mandating this: employers, schools, and travel (airlines in particular). You can imagine if all the airlines got together, the CEOs, and said: "You know what, we're just going to mandate this", and the six biggest ones got together and said that. It's just like the masks; you can't avoid their mandates. This is a very big problem.
(51:50) So America's Frontline Doctors is tackling this. We intend to talk to decision makers in the airline industry. One of our tools in that battle will be to armed with at least one million signatures of human beings who are going to say: "No, we are not going to do business with anybody, and we're not going to comply with anybody who mandates this". Everyone, whether you want to take the vaccine, whether you want your mom to take the vaccine -- that's you're choice. But I think everyone hearing this can agree: We don't need the CEOs of big companies forcing experimental biological agents on anyone.
[Applause]
(52:38) What I need you to see now, though, before we get to that point, is that we are going to be at their mercy if we don't get ahead of them. We must get ahead of that bad decision that they keep heading towards making. Quantas Airlines has already said that they're going to do this. We need to go to these airlines; we have a plan. Part of that plan is at least a million signatures. You must go to StopMedicalDiscrimination.org and sign the petition. You also must also share that petition with everyone; do not be shy. This is your life! Are you going to be able to travel? It's not just your personal life, but can you advocate, can you go to Washington D.C. and advocate if you can't get on a plane. This is very important. Go to StopMedicalDiscrimination.org; it is your obligation. I've done my part; my doctors have done their part; you must do your part. Each of you should take it upon yourselves to get a thousand signatures. Everyone everywhere: StopMedicalDiscrimination.org. Critical, critical!
[Applause]
(54:00) If you are part of a union, you should be bringing this to the union. This is a human rights issue. Your union should advocate for you. Now this may sound strange to you, because you think the union's on the other side of this. Maybe they are, but the union hasn't even heard the facts. If you're part of a union, you should stand up and say: "I don't want this forced on me." If you know a pilot, pilots union, teachers union, nurses union. Very important!
(54:30) Phrase this as a human rights issue. This is not anti-vaccination. I'm always reminded: "Please tell people where I stand on the vaccine issue." I personally have been vaccinated for everything. This is a human rights issue that you cannot mandate human beings take experimental agents.
(54:50) And the third call to action is to always use the word 'experiment' when you talk about this. Always! Socialists win the language wars, they change language. Remember, I said to you: This the the Wuhan virus, then it became the coronavirus, then it became Covid-19. This is a battle for words. The word to remember is not 'vaccine', the word to remember is 'experimental'. Every conversation you have with people: it's 'experimental'.
(55:26) Now, if you need backup for everything I've said, all of this is on our web site: AmericasFrontlineDoctors.com -- in big letters: 'Vaccine Information'. It's also on StopMedicalDiscrimination.org -- you've got a 35-page paper with 70 references; everything is clean and clear, so you don't have to know all this yourself -- it's all there for you.
(55:47) So the Call to Action: 1) StopMedicalDiscrimination.org, sign it, share it; 2) Go to your union; 3) 'Experimental', teach everyone this is experimental, in podcasts, talking to people -- any outlet you have.