Pro-Vax Doctors & Virologists NOT Getting the Jab

  • Updated:6 months ago
  • Reading Time:35Minutes
  • Post Words:8885Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Living-Document. Last Updated: July 13 2021

Part 6: Health Professionals & Virologists who are not getting the jab (and their reasons)

On this post:

  • Dr. Byram Bridle – Viral Immunologist
    (concern about the true efficiency of the vaccines & missing trial data)

  • Dr. Peter McCullough – Cardiologist
    (concern about current vaccines & suppression of effective treatments)

  • Professor Sucharit Bhakdi’s
    (urgent grave concern regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers & missing data prior to approval for use in humans)

  • Geert Vanden Bossche – Vet specialising in virology & vaccinology
    (concern that mass-vaccination may breed highly infectious variants)

  • Dr. Ray Sahelian, M.D. – Retired Medical Doctor
    (concerned about side-effects)

  • Dr. James Marcum – Cardiologist
    (says COVID-19 is treatable without being vaccinated)

  • Dr. Joseph Mercola – Osteopathic Physician
    (concerned about corruption and the push for vaccines and suppression of alternative treatments)

  • Dr. Charles D. Hoffe – Family Doctor
    (concerned about side-effects)

  • Dr Pierre Kory – Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist
    (more comfortable with the alternative, wants to wait for more data, concern about the suppression of effective treatments)

  • Dr. Suneel Dhand – MedStoic Lifestyle Medicine
    (already recovered from COVID-19 and has antibodies)

  • Dr. Robert Malone – Inventor of mRNA technology
    (lives & breathes vaccines but serious concerns with new COVID vaccines in particular the COVID-19 Spike Protein vs the Spike Protein produced by the COVID-19 Vaccines & serious concerns about specific pre-trial studies skipped & more)

  • Professor Michael Levitt – Nobel Prize Chemistry
    (warning since the beginning that lockdown is a mistake, and that natural herd immunity is better, monthly updates on ‘cases’)

Dr. Byram Bridle

Dr. Byram Bridle

Dr. Bridle is an associate professor and viral immunologist in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. His research interests include developing a better understanding of how the immune system responds to viral infections as well as designing immunotherapies for the treatment of cancers and infectious diseases.

As someone who has spent his career developing vaccines, and from a perspective of someone who has faith in vaccines (usually), this video comes with a lot of great information about his concerns about the vaccines (that are currently available), and at the time of this video (15 Feb 2021), because he is in the low-risk demographic, he would prefer natural immunity. He goes into details about how there is a concern about the true efficiency of the vaccines (that a large data set was excluded to be approved, and the efficiency could be as low as 19% – 29%), as well as standard things that never normally happen but are happening now with these latest vaccines, and the variants.

Transcript-Web | Transcript-PDF

Dr. Peter McCullough

DrPeter McCullough

Dr. Peter McCullough, 57, is a Cardiologist and Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, TX. (05) He and his wife were diagnosed with COVID-19 and used the protocol of hydroxychloroquine, antibiotics, aspirin, and vitamins that he and over 20 of his colleagues have published for the early treatment of COVID-19. Here is his protocol. (06)

I’ve seen him everywhere trying to sound the alarm about the (current) vaccines and the suppression of proven treatments. He believes that COVID-19 is treatable but has been suppressed and that the way these vaccines have been rolling out is very dangerous.

Every video I watch of his rings true for me, I have the same concerns as he does, and I’m not sure which video to share, so I might have to share a few.

This next video (20mins) is his testimony to the Senate committee to call out that COVID is treatable and other issues getting the word out including social media censorship. (07).


Peter McCullough: 00:00
Good afternoon. I’m Dr. Peter McCullough and I’m an internist and cardiologist and professor of medicine at Texas A&M University School of Medicine. I’m on the Baylor Dallas campus, and I’ve been integrally involved in the response to COVID-19.

Now, the opinions expressed are those of my own, and not necessarily those of my institution. I can tell you that in my field, I’m an academic doctor, I see patients, but I’m very involved in research.

I’m the editor of two major journals. In my field, I’m the most published person – in my field, which deals with the heart and the kidneys – in the world in history. And when COVID-19 hit, I saw it as our medical Superbowl, and they were going to be doctors like Dr. Urso coming out of wherever they worked to face the virus. And there were doctors in the hospital that just had to receive the virus.

Peter McCullough: 00:56
And then there were those who headed for the sidelines. And then there were those that were detractors against the pandemic. And so as I started to survey the literature, I had patients with heart and lung disease who needed urgent treatment. And I refused to let an illness which lasted for two weeks at home before they got sick enough, to be hospitalized.

I refused to let a patient languish at home with no treatment and then be hospitalized when it was too late. It was obvious. That was obvious in April, that that was the case.

So I used the best tools or drugs available at the time. And these are appropriately prescribed off label. Remember, a label is an advertising label, a label isn’t a scientific document. There is an appropriately prescribed off-label use of conventional medicine to treat an illness.
And I, in May, I put together a team of doctors because the group that was facing the pandemic to the greatest degree was in Milan, Italy.

Peter McCullough: 02:00
So most of them were in the Italian research network.

We summarized all we knew about the available drugs, and we published our findings in the August 8th issue of the American Journal of Medicine. And the title of that paper was the Pathophysiologic Basis And Rationale For Early Ambulatory Treatment. And it had a premise there’s two bad outcomes to COVID-19, hospitalization and death.

The second premise, if we don’t do something before the hospitalization, we can never stop it. We can never stop it. And I have to tell you when I, and was the lead author in that paper, but we had dozens of authors from Italy, India, UCLA, Emory. We had the best institutions in the United States.
I can tell you the interesting thing was there was 50,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID. Not a single one told a doctor how to treat it. Not a single one.

Peter McCullough: 02:51
When does that happen? I was absolutely stunned. And when this paper was published in American Journal of Medicine, it became a lightning ride. Oh my gosh, it became the most cited paper in basically all of medicine at that time.

The world started knocking on my door and I said, Oh my Lord. I just can’t believe what became untapped. And I had never been on social media before. And my daughter who was home from law school, I was talking to her about it. She said, well, why don’t make a YouTube video?

So I made a YouTube video with four slides from the paper. This is a peer-reviewed paper published in one of the best medical journals in the world, four slides. I even wore a tie and a suit, and she showed me how to record it in PowerPoint.

Peter McCullough: 03:30
And I posted it on YouTube. It went absolutely viral. And within about a week, YouTube said you violated the terms of the community.
And that’s when Senator Johnson’s office got involved in Washington and said, Oh my gosh, this is important scientific information to help patients in the middle of this crisis. And social media is striking it down. Based on what authority?

Well, one thing led to another and I became the lead witness for the US Senate testimony on November 19th, 2020. And the reason why there was Senate testimony is because there was a near total block on any information of treatment to patients, a near total block.
And so what had happened over time is that we had gotten into a cycle in America of no information on treatment. Patients actually think that the virus is untreatable. And so what happens is they go out to get a diagnosis.

Now I’m a COVID survivor, my wife in the galley is a COVID survivor, my father in a nursing home is a COVID survivor.
You get handed a diagnostic test. It says, here, you’re COVID positive, go home. Is there any treatment? No. Is there any resources I can call? No. Any referral lines, hotlines? No. Any research hotlines? No. That’s the standard of care in the United States. And if we go to any one of our testing centers today in Texas, I bet that’s the standard of care. I bet that’s the standard of care. No wonder we have had 45,000 deaths in Texas. The average person in Texas thinks there’s no treatment. They honestly think there’s no treatment.

They don’t even know about these EUA antibodies. You heard from a 90 year old gentleman who got bamlanivimab. Terrific.
Where’s the focus? There’s such a focus on the vaccine. Where’s the focus on people sick right now? This committee ought to know where all these monoclonal antibodies are. They ought to know where all the treatment protocols are. They ought to have a list of the treatment centers in Texas that actually treat patients with COVID-19. So I led the initiative.

The second paper was published in a dedicated issue of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Now I had 57 authors, including Dr. Urso, Dr. Immanuel, lead doctors in Houston, San Antonio, all over. And it was another world by paper. And now we have it updated, integrated. So yes, we used drugs to affect viable replication.

Peter McCullough: 05:50
The antibodies are terrific. We can use intercellular anti-infectives in that box. We use corticosteroids in inflammatory drugs. The best anti-inflammatory drug is colchicine. You’ve probably never heard about it. In the largest, highest quality randomized trial, over 4,000 patients, double blind randomized placebo controlled trial. There’s a 50% reduction in mortality. No word of it, none, complete block to anybody, colchicine.

How can that be? How can that be? And then the most deadly part of the viral infection is thrombosis. So I have always treated my patients with something to treat the virus, something to treat the inflammation and something to treat thrombosis.

Just as Dr. Urso had. And I had very, very sick patients and I’ve lost two. But I have to tell you, what has gone on has been beyond belief.
How many of you have turned on a local news station or a national cable news station and ever gotten an update on treatment at home?

Peter McCullough: 06:52
How many of you have ever gotten a single word about what to do when you get handed the diagnosis of COVID-19? No wonder that is a complete and total failure at every level.

Okay. Let’s take the White House. How come we didn’t have a panel of doctors assigned to put all their efforts and stop these hospitalizations? Why don’t we have doctors who actually treated patients get together in a group and every week, give us an update. Why didn’t we have that? Why didn’t we have that at the state level? Zero? Why don’t we have any reports about how many patients were treated and spared hospitalizations from all the – I listened to six hours of testimony today? Zero. Zero.

We have a complete and total blank spot on treatment. It is a blanking phenomenon. At least in the United States, there are some heroes. Now, the American Society of Physician and Surgeons took the lead. They’re the group. They have identified 35 treatment centers in Texas.

Peter McCullough: 07:49
They knew who they are. They have emergency hotlines. They helped Dr. Hall put together this very brief pamphlet, but there’s more of an extensive one. We can pass it around to everyone that at least gives people half a chance to find out about information. Okay.

This is a complete and total travesty to have a fatal disease and not treat it. Now, the National Institutes of Health and the Infectious Diseases Society of America started putting out guidelines of the treatment of COVID-19. And to this date, they nearly exclusively deal with the hospitalized patient.
The two papers that I have published as the lead author, and supported by wonderful people, by Dr. Urso, are the only publications in the peer-reviewed literature that tell doctors how to treat COVID-19 as an outpatient, based on the supportive scientific information. The only two.
The home treatment guide by the American Physicians and Surgeons is the only source of information available to patients on how to treat COVID-19 at home. The only source.

Peter McCullough: 08:50
So what can be done right here, right now? There’s going to be more people that die in Texas. And it’s an absolute tragedy. How about tomorrow? Let’s have a law that says there’s not a single result given out without a treatment guide and without a hotline of how to get into research. Let’s put a staff around this and find out all the research available in Texas. And let’s not have a single person go home with a test result with their fatal diagnosis, sitting at home, going into two weeks of despair before they succumb to hospitalization and death.

It is unimaginable in America that we can have such a complete and total blind spot. I blame the doctors for not stepping up. Where was the medical society stepping up and putting effort on this? How about from the federal and state agencies? There never was a single bit of group collaborative effort to stop the hospitalizations.

Peter McCullough: 09:39
Nobody even kind of thought about it. Bob Hall had me on a teleconference in April or May. And we’re like, wait a minute. How come, where’s UT Southwestern? I’m a graduate of UT Southwestern. Where’s A&M? Where’s the rest of the universities? How come we’re not stopping this? How come we are not stopping this?
But it gets worse because in the paper I published in December of 2020, you know what I did. I had a terrific doctor from Brazil, we went through country by country, by country. And just asked the question, what are the countries doing? What was the last time you turned on the news and ever got a window to the outside world? When did you ever get an update about how the rest of the world is handling COVID? Never.
What’s happened in this pandemic is the world has closed in on us.

Peter McCullough: 10:23
There’s only one doctor whose face is on TV now. One, not a panel. Doctors, we always work in groups. We always have different opinions.
There’s not a single media doctor on TV who’s ever treated a COVID patient. Not a single one. There’s not a single person in the White House task force who has ever treated a patient. Why don’t we do something bold? Why don’t we put together a panel of doctors that have actually treated outpatients with COVID-19 and get them together for a meeting.

And why don’t we exchange ideas? And why don’t we say how we can finish the pandemic strongly? Isn’t it amazing? Think about this. Think about the complete and total blind spot. So what happened? I can tell you what happened.

What happened in around May, it became known that the virus was going to be amenable to a vaccine.
All efforts on treatment were dropped. The National Institutes of Health actually had a multi-drug program. They dropped it after 20 patients, said, we can’t find the patients. The most disingenuous announcement of all time.

And then Warp Speed went full tilt for vaccine development. And there was a silencing of any information on treatment. Any. Silencing. Scrubbed from Twitter, YouTube. Can’t get papers published on this. You can’t, we can’t even get information out in our own medical literature on this. There’s been a complete scrubbing.

So this program has been one of, try to reduce the spread of the virus and wait for a vaccine. And when we vaccinate, all efforts have to be on vaccination. And probably if I had four hours of vaccination on here. Think about it. As we sit here today, the calculations in Texas on herd immunity, the calculations are we’re at 80% herd immunity right now with no vaccine effect. 80%. And more people are developing COVID today.
They’re going to become immune. People who develop COVID have complete and durable immunity – a very important principle – complete and durable. You can’t beat natural immunity. You can’t vaccinate on top of it and make it better. There’s no scientific, clinical or safety rationale for ever vaccinating a COVID recovered patient.

There’s no rationale for ever testing a COVID recovered patient. My wife and I are COVID recovered. Why did we go through the testing outside? There’s absolutely no rationale.

I’d encourage this committee to actually look at what’s being done and ask, is there any rationale, is there any rationale for anything? Listen, there’s plenty of COVID recovered patients. Let them forgo the vaccine and let people who are clamoring for it get it. But at 80% herd immunity in the vaccine trials, fewer than 1% in the vaccine and the placebo actually get COVID. Fewer than 1%. The vaccine is going to have a 1% public health impact. That’s what the data says. It’s not going to save us. We’re already 80% herd immune. If we’re strategically targeted, we can actually close out the pandemic very well with the vaccine, but strategically targeted.

People under 50, who fundamentally have no health risks. There’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated.

Peter McCullough: 13:28
There’s no scientific rationale. One of the mistakes I heard today as a rationale for vaccination is asymptomatic spread. And I want you to be very clear about this. My opinion is there is a low degree, if any, of asymptomatic spread. Sick person gives it to sick person.
The Chinese have published a study in British Medical Journal, 11 million people, they tried to find asymptomatic spread. You can’t find it. And that’s been one of important pieces of misinformation. When Senator Hall called a conference call of what should we do in the Capitol when we reopened, I said, you know what? You know what we do at Baylor? You walk in and they zap your temperature.

You get a temperature check and go in. Do we test everybody who walks into the Baylor hospital? No. Are they a lot sicker than everybody in this room? You better believe it. So why would we do something here at the Capitol that has absolutely positively no scientific rationale and then do it in this context?

Peter McCullough: 14:22
So my testimony as I sit here today is COVID-19 has always been a treatable illness. A very large study from McKinney, Texas, another one from New York City show that when doctors treat patients early, who are over age 50 with medical problems, with a sequence multi-drug approach with the available drugs, four to six drugs that are available to them now, the monoclonal antibodies are better. There’s an 85% reduction in hospitalizations and death. 85%. 85%. I want you to remember that number. 85%.

We have over 500,000 deaths in the United States. The preventable fraction could have been as high as 85%. If our pandemic response would have been laser focused on the problem, the sick patient right in front of us. We’re focused over here and focused over there and focused on masks and what have you. Laser-focused. Sick patient, treat them. We lost focus on the most fundamental thing. That’s my testimony.

Chair: 15:24
Thank you. I can tell how passionate you are and certainly have been a leader in talking about preventive protocols and also the ambulatory stage. And I do think that that has been missing and it’s been a concern because COVID-19 is going to be with us, right? I mean, it’s, you know, I hope we’re at 80% herd immunity. I don’t know yet. I’ll read your papers, but I appreciate that. And the message is is that there are drugs out there that work. There are therapies out there that work.

Peter McCullough: 15:54
But no single one works alone. And so the dismissive mistake was to do a very small study. Oh, we studied 200 patients and we used ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and it didn’t work. That’s like cancer and picking one drug and saying, Oh, it doesn’t reduce cancer mortality. We never do that in cancer. We never did that in AIDS. We don’t do it in hepatitis C.
What we look for is signals of benefit and acceptable safety. And then we combine them and that’s all we’ve done. But this independent declaration drug by drug that the drugs don’t work has been, and that’s on us, that’s been our medical house. That’s been a giant error that we’ve made on our side. We never should have expected single drugs to reduce mortality, but drugs in combination against a fatal viral infection, we should have.

Chair: 16:39
This entire session is learned from lessons. I know we’re running short on time. Senator Hall, you have one question or?

Senator Hall: 16:48
Real, real quick. I’d ask the question earlier when Dr. Hellerstedt was here about the idea that fits in with what you’ve talked about is that when we test someone, rather than just say, give them, yep. You’re positive. You’re negative. Be on your way. That we at least provide them information of what we know out there can be used.
Not trying to play the role of doctor out there. Would you, do you agree with Dr. Hellerstedt’s interpretation that that should not be done because it’s setting up a doctor-patient relationship and simply informing people or providing with over the counter drugs so that we could possibly have the early treatment for these folks rather than wait till they show up in the hospital?

Peter McCullough: 17:40
We could at least have a physician group approved guide. The AAPS guide has been used in over 500,000 cases in the United States. In fact, the early treatment is probably what prevented us from overflowing the hospitals in the last quarter of the year.
When I testified, I said, listen, we’re on track. And I was very commenced to this. We’re on track of overflowing our hospitals. Our break point was 135,000 in the hospitals in the United States, we hit 128. Now the curve started going down long before the vaccine.
So I can tell you herd immunity long before the vaccine showed up, started to go down. But the early treatment kicked up, ivermectin news skyrocketed, hydroxychloroquine, monoclonal antibodies, as much as we could push them. Sadly, the monoclonal antibodies are still sitting on the shelf in a lot of places, but committees like this ought to be saying, listen, where are those monoclonal antibodies?

Peter McCullough: 18:28
Do we stock them at the nursing home? What are the big nursing home chains? What are the big urgent care chains in Texas? And what are they doing? What are their early treatment protocols?
You know, these are blank spots. I bet nobody here has even thought about this. This is really low hanging fruit that we can tackle. The bottom line is a lot of doctors have checked out. And when patients call them, they say, I don’t treat COVID.
And when I asked those doctors, I said, you don’t treat COVID, how come? They go, well, there’s no treatment. I said, but do you call them two days later to see how they’re doing? No. So what’s that? That’s not, I don’t treat COVID. That’s, I don’t care anymore. That’s a loss of compassion.
So we have a crisis of compassion in our country, in the medical field. That’s in our house right now. But for every doctor that’s ever told a patient that they don’t treat COVID. Okay. But do they call them two days later and help them get oxygen or see how they’re doing?
If the answer’s no, that’s the Hippocratic oath going out. And that’s on us. And I’m telling you, we have a real self-check to do in the house of medicine.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi

Professsor Sucharit Bhakdi MD

Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and Thailand

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi’s video statement on the urgent open letter from doctors & scientists to the European Medicines Agency regarding COVID-19 vaccine dangers. (08)

Geert Vanden Bossche

Geert Vanden Bossche

Geert Vanden Bossche is a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine who has specialist expertise in virology and vaccinology. Geert has worked in industry in the construction of vaccines, and in the non profit sector working to bring immunity to larger numbers of people. His fear with mass-vaccination will make the virus stronger (will breed highly infectious variants.) Website (11) | References (12) | Quotes & Docs (13)

Dr. Ray Sahelian, M.D.

Dr. Ray Sahelian, M.D.

Dr. Ray Sahelian, M..D. is a retired medical doctor who has moved from ‘hesitant’ to no.

May 2, 2021
I Will Not Be Taking the Current Vaccines
After being in the “hesitant” category for several months I am now in the “no” category. As a retired medical doctor I have plenty of time, and a genuine fascination, to thoroughly research this topic. I have been diligently reviewing every scientific journal I can find, reading every online news article I come across, and going through countless case reports on the CDC VAERS website. I now have a clearer understanding of how these mRNA vaccines influence our immune system and organs, how they could be of benefit, and how they cause the multiple short, medium, and long term side effects.

I am now convinced that the benefits promoted by the experts on TV regarding these vaccines are less than what they promise, and the adverse reactions are more than they want us to believe. The effects of these vaccines on the human body are infinitely more complex than anyone can imagine. A million shades of grey, you may say.

He has created several articles that go into what he has researched and explaining the side-effects (14) and more. Read the rest of his article on his website. (15) (I just don’t want to copy his entire website into this post)

Dr. James Marcum

Dr. James Marcum

Dr. James Marcum is a Cardiologist practicing with the Chattanooga Heart Institute. (16) He is very active in the television, radio, and print arm of Heartwise Ministries. (17)

He has made a personal decision to not take the vaccine (yet). He said we need to build a strong immune system. Exercise, sleep, water, Vitamin D, minerals, eating a healthy diet, being happy, less-stress, to strengthen immune. Then, he believes in early-treatment. He said its treatable, and that even long-haulers could be prevented by early treatment. We have acquired immunity. Identifying higher-risk groups.

He also cites a study that showed that if you have a previous history of SARS-Cov-2 infection, you have a 84% lower risk of re-infection (7 months later) (18). In another study, it showed that 95% of subjects had 95% retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. (19) Another study he looked at was another study from the first coronaviruses (SARS-CoV & MERS-CoV) where they looked at people 12 years after they had the virus and they still had T-cell immunity. (20) There is a test he did to look at antibodies and found that he had antibodies to the virus, and that because he has naturally been infected, he has antibodies to the whole virus (not just the spike protein) (21)
Website | YouTube (22)

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Dr. Joseph Mercola is an American alternative medicine proponent and osteopathic physician. He has published a number of books with his newest book being: The Truth About COVID-19 – which goes into evidence that the virus was created in a lab, for wealth transfer, that when Trump removed funding for W.H.O. it was found that the 2nd highest funding next to the United States for the World Health Organization is actually Gates.

He also says people can’t give their ‘informed consent” before taking these vaccines if they’ve only been told one side:- ‘that the vaccines are safe’ (that any narrative that questions the vaccines are being suppressed and censored), and that they’ve masterfully created scarcity to make people feel lucky if they have access to a vaccine. He estimates more people will die from the vaccine than who died from COVID-19.

Website (23) | The Truth About COVID-19 Book (24) | Audible (25)

Also see his related articles and videos on his website:

This is a video that has both Pro’s and Con’s – featuring opposing views. The first half of the video is an interview with Dr Mercola who discusses the origin of COVID-19, lockdown, great reset, and vaccine with a very different narrative than the mainstream narrative, and the 2nd half is an interview with Dr. Jeremy Kamil with the mainstream narrative.

Dr. Charles D. Hoffe

Dr. Charles D. Hoffe

This isn’t a doctor speaking out about not taking the vaccine, but one who has serious concerns about side effects that he’s noticing in his patients who have received the vaccine. In April, he wrote to the British Columbia Provincial Health Officer stating he was “quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side effects from this novel treatment,” in reference to Moderna COVID-19 injections given to 900 mostly Indigenous people in Lytton, British Columbia.

Instead of his concerns being addressed, his allegations were dismissed by Interior Health’s Kamloops-based medical health officer Dr. Carol Fenton, who said there have been “no deaths or lasting adverse reactions” connected to any COVID-19 vaccine in BC, let alone in the Interior Health region.

In May, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia put out a warning claiming that any doctors found to “contradict public health orders and guidance” would be subject to investigation and potentially regulatory action.

You can download the Open Letters in PDF format here.

Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry from BC Physician re: Moderna Vaccine Reactions

5 April, 2021


Dr. Bonnie Henry,
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health
1515 Blanchard Street
Victoria, BC, V8W 3C9

Dear Dr. Henry,

The first dose of the Moderna vaccine has now been administered to some of my patients in the community of Lytton, BC. This began with the First Nations members of our community in mid-January, 2021. 900 doses have now been administered.

I have been quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side-effects from this novel treatment.
From this relatively small number of people vaccinated so far, we have had:

  1. Numerous allergic reactions, with two cases of anaphylaxis.
  2. One (presumed) vaccine induced sudden death, (in a 72 year old patient with COPD. This patient complained of being more short of breath continually after receiving the vaccine, and died very suddenly and unexpectedly on day 24, after the vaccine. He had no history of cardiovascular disease).
  3. Three people with ongoing and disabling neurological deficits, with associated chronic pain, persisting for more than 10 weeks after their first vaccine. These neurological deficits include: continual and disabling dizziness, generalised or localized neuromuscular weakness, with or without sensory loss. The chronic pain in these patients is either generalised or regional, with or without headaches.

So in short, in our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age.

So I have a couple of questions and comments:

  1. Are these considered normal and acceptable long term side-effects for gene modification therapy? Judging by medical reports from around the world, our Lytton experience is not unusual.
  2. Do you have any idea what disease processes may have been initiated, to be producing these ongoing neurological symptoms?
  3. Do you have any suggestions as to how I should treat the vaccine induced neurological weakness, the dizziness, the sensory loss, and the chronic pain syndromes in these people, or should they be all simply referred to a neurologist? I anticipate that many more will follow, as the vaccine is rolled out. This was only phase one, and the first dose.
  4. In stark contrast to the deleterious effects of this vaccine in our community, we have not had to give any medical care what-so-ever, to anyone with Covid-19. So in our limited experience, this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than Covid-19.
  5. I realize that every medical therapy has a risk-benefit ratio, and that serious disease calls for serious medicine. But we now know that the recovery rate of Covid-19, is similar to the seasonal flu, in every age category. Furthermore, it is well known that the side effects following a second shot, are significantly worse than the first. So the worst is still to come.
  6. It must be emphasised, that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease. These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined.
  7. It is normally considered a fundamental principal of medical ethics, to discontinue a clinical trial if significant harm is demonstrated from the treatment under investigation.
  8. So my last question is this: Is it medically ethical to continue this vaccine rollout, in view of the severity of these life altering side-effects, after just the first shot? In Lytton, BC, we have an incidence of 1 in 225 of severe life altering side-effects, from this experimental gene modification therapy.

I have also noticed that these vaccine induced side effects are going almost entirely unreported, by those responsible for the vaccine rollout. I am aware that this is often a problem, with vaccines in general, and that delayed side-effects after vaccines, are sometimes labelled as being “coincidences”, as causality is often hard to prove. However, in view of the fact that this is an experimental treatment, with no long-term safety data, I think that perhaps this issue should be addressed too.

Furthermore I have noticed, that the provincial vaccine injury reporting form, which was clearly designed for conventional vaccines, does not even have any place to report vaccine injuries of the nature and severity that we are seeing from this new mRNA therapy.

It is now clearly apparent with medical evidence from around the world, that the side-effect profiles of the various gene modification therapies against Covid-19, have been vastly understated by their manufacturers, who were eager to prove their safety.

Thank you for attention to this critically urgent public health matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Charles Hoffe

Dr. Pierre Kory

Dr. Pierre Kory

Initially he was advocating for the vaccines, and promoting Ivermectin as a “bridge” for countries waiting for a vaccine or for those who can’t get vaccinated. He and a team of frontline health professionals (who were gathering data and sharing front-line protocols based on what was working for them and in other countries) was trying to get the effective preventative and treatment protocols out to other health professionals, and was alarmed to discover their important life-saving messages were being censored and suppressed.

He and his team wrote papers and even appealed to the senate to look at the data, and naively thought that once they reviewed the data, that it would be recommended to everyone and the pandemic would be over – instead, they reviewed only a few of the trials, excluded a lot of them, and determined it wasn’t an effective treatment against COVID-19 and that it should only be used in clinical trials – effectively preventing anyone following WHO’s advice from accessing the information. Stunned, they thought they just needed to show them more data, but when they presented more data, they found more closed doors, and they are now attempting to discredit him as a ‘crank that promotes unproven treatments’, and that the only effective treatment is “getting the vaccine”.

He is fully vaccinated, his kids are fully vaccinated, but these new vaccines he hasn’t taken (yet) because he’s much more comfortable using the alternatives (Ivermectin+) and wants to see more data on these vaccines (that’s irony for you lol). Ivermectin and the other protocols work, has a long-term (40 year) safety profile, and works in all stages of COVID-19 (from prevention to treatment) and it’s being suppressed/dismissed and the vaccines are being promoted as the safer recommended choice, and something doesn’t feel right about that.

Website (33) | Prevention and Treatment Protocols for COVID-19 (34)

Whilst there are a lot of videos, I chose these two to include. This first one (2.5 hours), is the most recent (posted 2 days go) and goes through his mind-boggling journey with trying to get Ivermectin out to the other frontline workers – from writing the papers, to approaching the senate with the data, to being dismissed, etc. It also discussed more about how Ivermectin works, and discusses the various illogical things that are happening during this pandemic (and it’s push for people to get vaccinated as the only choice). This is my favourite “tv” right now, and even though it’s 2.5 hours long, I have downloaded it to watch over and over again.

Backup Links to this video: (Yes, YouTube keeps deleting it, even after millions have seen it)
YouTube 1 | YouTube 2 | Odysee
Podcast (Audio-Only) Versions:
Spotify | Google Podcasts | PodChaser | Apple Podcasts | iHeartRadio

Links mentioned in this video:

The second video is shorter and I’ve transcribed the main points in another post. This is his appeal to the senate to look at the data (and this was last year before even more trial outcome data has come to light).

I am obsessed by Ivermectin and have many posts on it already including many videos and references.

Dr. Suneel Dhand

Dr. Suneel Dhand

This is a pro-vaccination doctor who isn’t getting the vaccine because he has already recovered from COVID-19 and is requesting an open-debate with authorities to recognize natural immunity.
Website (44) | YouTube (45)

He didn’t link to the research he quoted, but I’ve found the same thing as I’ve been researching. I’ll try and remember to put the sources here as I come across them. (46) (47) (48) (49) (50) (51) (52)

Dr. Robert Malone

Dr. Robert Malone (Jab-Regret)

Dr. Robert Malone, Inventor of mRNA technology lives & breathes vaccines but has serious concerns with new COVID vaccines (in particular the COVID-19 Spike Protein vs the Spike Protein produced by the COVID-19 Vaccines) & serious concerns about specific pre-trial studies skipped & data missing because “everyone was in a rush because they wanted to save the world, but they cut corners that leaves out safety data that doesn’t expose all risks”.

Twitter @RWMaloneMD | Website | LinkedIn

3 Hour Interview with Robert Malone & Steve Kirsch & Bret Weinstein

Timestamps: (Robert Malone bolded)
00:00 Introductions
02:20 This must be discussed
03:13 Will herd immunity be reached?
07:58 Spike protein is very dangerous
13:45 FDA knew it could be toxic if it didn’t stay stuck

18:09 Vaccine sufferers censored
23:26 Reviewing the FDA data package
26:41 Corners were cut

27:52 Steve looking at VAERS
32:37 Robert’s friends at the FDA and the emergency use authorisation
37:38 Risk benefit and quality life years
40:18 Alternative to vaccines
44:19 Mask wearing RCT
45:28 Three anomalies around vaccines
46:05 Fluvoxamine trials
51:00 Two million dollar offer and the NIH
52:13 Robert’s view of the NIH
53:00 Regulatory capture

54:41 Fauci’s emails
56:30 Merck on Ivermectin
59:24 Emergent phenomenon
01:01:42 Vaccine deaths
01:03:24 Tess Lawrie’s vaccine safety data
01:04:43 Difference between the gene therapy vaccines
01:06:40 Self reported deaths from vaccines
01:09:18 Adverse reactions
01:17:12 Robert on V-safe database
01:19:30 Social media censorship
01:22:20 Steve’s experience with denial
01:24:17 Two teams
01:28:20 “Don’t come back until your lips are blue”
01:30:52 “Treat people early with drugs”
01:32:11 Ignoring frontline doctors
01:35:39 Financial incentives
01:37:28 Response to demand for RCT on ivermectin
01:38:39 Robert’s personal experience with repurposing drugs
01:40:52 Mink and ferrets lab research
01:43:53 Robert on animal model for COVID treatment

01:46:33 Ivermectin works
01:49:13 Repurposing drugs
01:52:17 Doctors ignoring treatments
01:55:31 Effective treatments for long haulers
01:56:45 Robert’s response on incentives and hospital liability
02:01:42 Additional antiviral and Gilead overlooking it
02:03:13 Communication is forbidden

Prof Michael Levitt

Nobel prize winning scientist Prof Michael Levitt: lockdown is a “huge mistake”.

Stanford Prof. of Biophysics, Cambridge PhD and DSc, and winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Chemistry (complex systems), FRS & US National Academy member. 

YouTube Interview | Article for this Interview

I think the policy of herd immunity is the right policy. I think Britain was on exactly the right track before they were fed wrong numbers. And they made a huge mistake.

I see the standout winners as Germany and Sweden. They didn’t practise too much lockdown and they got enough people sick to get some herd immunity.

I see the standout losers as countries like Austria, Australia and Israel that had very strict lockdown but didn’t have many cases. They have damaged their economies, caused massive social damage, damaged the educational year of their children, but not obtained any herd immunity.

There is no doubt in my mind, that when we come to look back on this, the damage done by lockdown will exceed any saving of lives by a huge factor.

Professor Michael Levitt


Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.