We're going to be talking about now patient empowerment, which the opposite of that was
patient disempowerment, which is what a lot of COVID turned into.
So lessons learned and now again to connect from the policy of how do we begin to fix
this at the large level, but what does that mean at the actual level where the practices
have to take place?
So that's what we're going to be discussing.
First up, we're going to bring up Dr. Kimberly Biss, IMA Senior Fellow, Obstetrics and Gynecology,
graduate, Tufts University, come on in, have a seat right there, trained in general surgery
and obstetrics and gynecology.
And then next up, we're bringing up Clayton Baker again.
Come on back up, Clayton.
Dr. Baker, good to have you up here.
No, same thing as before.
Sit down.
All right.
And then finally, we're bringing up Dr. Catherine Welch, IMA Senior Fellow, Pediatrics.
Thanks for being here.
Founder of Imago Dell Restorative Health and Relentless and Anti-Human Trafficking Organization.
So thank you all for being here.
So where do we start in this?
Patient.
What do we have?
our rights and so Kimberly I wanted to start with you and talk
about what actually you saw, how did we get disempowered
and what was the consequence of that from your perspective?
So I do have a slide deck.
I don't know what's going on.
If you want to you can advance there.
So bring the first slide up, up there you go.
Okay. You feel free to stand up so you can see that there.
Yeah so I wanted to because what I'm going to talk
about sadly isn't very happy so I kind of wanted to start
out with a story.
So I actually took this picture last weekend.
I was like perfect because I wanted a picture for my slides.
And the squirrel mommy, and I apologize because I'm old
so I don't want to misgender the squirrels,
but I assumed it was a female.
So a month prior I was walking my dog around this lake
and this squirrel came down a trunk of a tree carrying something
in her mouth and when I ran right in front of me and went up another tree
and then did the same thing three times and the second time she did it,
I realized that she had a little baby in her mouth.
So I was like, that's interesting.
So I looked it up on Google and, you know,
they say a squirrel all of a sudden doesn't like its nest or feels
that nest isn't safe, it's going to move into another nest.
So I'm like, well, that's a boring story.
I said, here's my story.
So she's postpartum.
She got pissed off at her husband.
She packed everything she owned in her cheeks.
She grabbed each kid and went to the opposite nest.
That's my story.
So she's still living in the nest.
And again, I probably misgendered.
I don't know if she had a female partner or whatever.
So I don't know how squirrels, how fast they grow,
but these are the three babies.
And the first picture on the left,
the baby actually was coming.
I was very close to the tree.
And the mama came down and said, uh-uh,
you're not getting close to my baby.
So mamas will be mamas.
So that's the happy part of my talk.
So this is me.
I know you already heard my background, but I just wanted
to show that I was actually in Atlanta for a year.
I did my general surgery internship here at Emory.
And if anybody wants to know or experience hell on earth,
just go train at Grady Memorial.
So. All right.
So, informed consent, this is out of the Green Journal,
which is the magazine we get every month from ACOG.
And this was back in 2007, and they wrote a whole article
on ethical decision making.
And I just wanted to highlight informed consent,
because there was none of that during COVID,
and especially when the shots were rolled out.
And in the fall of 2021, we all got
from our respective medical boards this lovely email
that basically said play nice in the sandbox or you're going
to lose your board certification,
which isn't the same as losing your license.
But in the state of Florida, you're probably not going
to get your license re-upped if you lose your board certification
and you can't be on staff at most hospitals.
So it essentially renders you unable to practice.
So I wanted to show everybody how these injections got
into pregnant women's arms because after taking care
of pregnant women for 30 years, almost 8,000 of them,
they won't even take an aspirin.
They won't color their hair.
They won't eat tuna fish.
But 65% of my pregnant patients lined
up and got these injections.
In 2020, as we all know, most of us know in December was
when the EUA was granted and that was based on the Pfizer trial
and I just kind of highlighted some statistics from the trial
because Farajee got up there and said
that they were 95% effective and that was not true.
They weren't even a percent effective
at preventing mild symptoms, not even major symptoms.
But in any event, emergency use was granted.
No pregnant woman was entered into the trial.
I'm sure some got pregnant by accident.
Of course, we don't have that data.
I'm sure it's not very favorable.
But men and women were told that, you know,
Well, you shouldn't even have sex, but if you do,
make sure you're on, you know,
some effective form of birth control.
So no pregnant women were in the trials.
Now, ACIP recommended the groups that got vaccinated.
The first group was the first responders,
and that's not because they care about first responders,
but if a doctor or a nurse gets an injection,
a lot of the lay public will follow.
So some of those were women.
And Pfizer aftermarket data
that was not really given to the public,
but Walensky had this information at the end of February of 2021 showing
that of the pregnant women they actually followed up on,
the miscarriage rate was 81%.
Now, in April of that year, she did an audio recording that was published
on the New England Journal of Medicine, and she stated that these were safe
and effective in pregnancy.
Now, where is she getting that information?
The only data she had was negative at that point.
Now, we've come to find out from Maggie Thorpe, Dr. Jim Thorpe's wife
who submitted a FOIA that HHS had been funneling money into a trust
that then gave money to several entities, probably the sports teams,
Hollywood, anything with three or four letters to do with medical.
And ACOG, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
received somewhere in the range of 11 to 13 million dollars in April
that year to market these injections to women
because who makes decisions in the household usually for health?
The female.
And if you can get a pregnant woman to get a shot just
like your doctor or nurse, guess how many people are going
to follow suit, okay?
So in June of that year was the infamous Tom Shimabukura article
which came out in the New England Journal of Medicine
if we're not seeing a theme here.
And he, they looked at the V-safe data which were,
A lot of them were nurses, and those that got pregnant, they said, well, good news,
the miscarriage rate is normal at 15%, which is not a normal rate.
The normal rate is 6%.
But they did the wrong math.
The actual miscarriage rate was the same as the Pfizer aftermarket data, was over 80%.
And when somebody sent a letter to the editor questioning that, they said, okay, thank you
very much, but they still haven't retracted this article.
And I got in an argument with a high-risk obstetrician across the hall from me about
how, you know, he said, well, these are safe.
Look at this article.
He also has a degree in statistics.
And he couldn't even realize that the math wasn't correct.
So now in July was when the official statement from the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
and ACOG came out saying these are safe and effective in pregnancy.
Again, we have no long-term studies showing that.
We had no long, it wasn't even long-term.
All we had was negative data, but anybody thinking of getting pregnant, pregnant or breastfeeding
should get these injections.
And if you look on the ACOG site today, this is still the guidance in 2025.
That's it.
And so, that's the state of it right now?
Yes.
That's still the state of it.
And before you saw this unfold, what would you have said the role of evidence would have
been in your profession?
Well first of all, in my profession, we, you know, two drugs that we should have remembered
before recommending these injections would have been thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol.
And I fear that these injections are going to be very similar to diethylsilvestrol or
DES because now we know that everything goes to these babies and we're going to see this
probably in subsequent generations problems with, you know, a menagerie of things.
But you know, lipid nanoparticles were originally designed to get things across barriers like
the blood-brain barrier, like chemo into the brain.
So if these go into the babies, what does that mean for our babies' brains?
I mean, we're all thinking about autism, but, you know,
there's probably going to be some other horrendous things.
But we've never given a pregnant woman anything fresh
out of the gate.
I mean, you have two patients.
You have the mom and the baby.
And you want to know what's going to happen
to the baby long term.
And there was none of that.
And, by the way, Pfizer was, had a study that they halted looking
at pregnant women and then followed their babies
for six months, and they halted the study
because if they had had one more congenital anomaly,
that would have been statistically significant for harm.
So there is not any long-term studies.
And as we now know, at least with respect
to the Pfizer injections, it wasn't just mRNA coming along
for the ride, but DNA, plasmids, linearized fragments, stuff.
They got transfected across cell membranes
into potential germline issue.
We have a study that came out this year showing
that the messenger RNA was given to mice, pregnant mice went
into the fetuses, they could measure that in the bloodstream
and that the fetuses were actually making the antibodies
to the spike because they found IgM antibodies in the babies
and IgM does not cross the placenta.
So, this was active production of antibodies
and spike in the babies.
So, you showed us informed consent as a concept.
Guess, why did it break down?
What happened?
Fear. You know, fear and sadly, just doctors did
with their governing bodies told them to do
and they were threatened if they didn't do that.
Yeah. So, yeah.
Wow. Clayton, from a slightly higher level, I mean, vaccines in general,
taking it off of the, just the MRA, whatever we're calling this thing now,
where do we stand in terms of that policy and informed consent?
I would say that there are, to my mind, there's four points I'd want to make
and I'll make them briefly because there are so many.
The first is the issue of recommendations,
official recommendations, including the CDC recommendations.
That's one level that we really need to be very aggressive about right now, need to be
very forceful about moving forward.
The second is mandates, okay?
Mandates are more obviously than recommendations.
The third is the mRNA platform.
And the fourth is the one good one that I've, or the one positive one that I've got.
And I want to start with that because I'd like to be a little bit positive.
I mean, this is an atrocity, and this is something that I just want to,
you presented it, Kim, very, very in a cool-headed way,
but this is an atrocity.
I'm not an OB-GYN, but I was taught in second-year medical school,
the fundamental tenet of maternal fetal medicine is leave them the hell
alone whenever possible.
That is the fundamental, that's not an exaggeration, is it?
You leave them alone because you don't know what's going to happen
and 99% of it is bad.
And one of those people has to live with it their entire life.
That is fundamental to decent moral medicine.
This is so egregiously immoral.
It's not just a rush to treatment.
This is as bad as it gets.
When you go after the maternal fetal dyad, you are doing evil.
And I don't want to understate that.
That's really true.
So if you question that these people are fundamentally evil,
there's your proof right there.
That's, and I don't mean to get, I was happy in the last segment,
so I will try to get back to it.
But the second thing I would say is the bloom is off the rose
with vaccines, and that's good.
I don't care who is out there.
Does anybody here, and obviously this is a biased sample,
does anybody here think we don't have a gigantic problem
with the entire vaccine industry?
Does anybody, how many people do you know, percentage of people,
five years ago would have believed vaccines were the greatest thing
in the history of medicine?
How many, what percentage of those same people now have,
at least have serious questions about it?
I think it's clearly a majority of people.
Most people in that flabby middle aren't willing to quite accept it,
but they're not taking the boosters.
The boosters are still recommended.
So, I think that we have, that's a good thing
because there is something seriously wrong
with the whole vaccine industry.
And we have to push that hard and going back and bringing back studies
like this and just rubbing people's noses in it at the level
of the people responsible for it, Wilensky and people like that.
But in a different way, presenting that again
to the public is really important.
So that's the whole issue with the bloom off the rose.
The three other things very quickly I would say is this.
Recommendations need to change.
And I realize that I'm as confident as I can be
that Secretary Kennedy and everyone is on board with this,
but it has to happen.
And again, as I said, with the vitamin D levels and stuff
and the standard issue of do we really have the correct levels
for different nutritional markers in blood streams
in our blood and whatnot, blood tests.
If we change those recommendations,
the overwhelming majority of physicians
and other providers are going to follow them
because they follow, we've learned one thing about doctors
is they follow orders, okay?
So we really need to change those recommendations
and a lot of this will improve
and that needs to happen soon.
The next step is the mandates, okay?
And mandates is a complicated multi-level issue
because it's present at state levels, it's present,
the people who are empowered to enforce mandates
blow your mind.
In New York state, in a lot of situations,
it's left to the superintendent of schools
for the school district to decide whether
or not to accept a vaccine exemption.
I mean, I just want to let you know,
and if there's any phys ed teachers out there, I don't want,
I love, I had some great phys ed teachers,
but a disproportionate number
of school superintendents are former phys ed teachers.
So if you want your phys ed teacher deciding whether
or not you get a religious or medical exemption,
go to public school in New York State.
It's such a complicated issue, but it really needs
to be tackled at a very high level.
It needs to be legislatively tackled.
And then the last, which I think pretty much everyone
in IMA is in agreement with, is the mRNA platform.
Number one, it's not a vaccine.
And in the short term,
what we should do is fully reestablish that
so it gets none of the protection that vaccines enjoy
from the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
And that's a definitional change.
That could be done very quickly,
and it could make a huge difference.
And then the only thing that would stop
that is lack of political will.
And then the last thing is that over time,
we need to find a way just to get that,
whether it's a 10-year moratorium,
whether it's whatever, we got to get it off the shelves
for the foreseeable future.
And I think that those would be the steps
that I would take from Michael.
Thank you.
So Dr. Welsh, while we're waiting for maybe policy
to catch up to the data a little bit,
and this is about patient empowerment,
can you speak to what are patient rights?
What can we as patients really expect and maybe even demand?
Well, first I want to say it's a privilege and honor
to be speaking here on this stage and with all of you.
So I think, you know, what, you know, Ken really laid out what,
you know, what is just in her specialty,
but in every other specialty, you know,
everyone can present the same kind of thing in all this.
And it just really illustrates the issues that we're facing.
And Dr. Baker was talking about all the big-time policies.
But what I want to encourage you is like where it's top-down,
and yes, these things need to happen, and I believe that we can.
And thank God that in America, now I did live and practice
in many countries around the world.
And so we do, thank God, still have a modicum
of medical freedom here.
But it's ours, you know, to lose it.
And so what I want to encourage all of you in your seats
or if you're watching virtually or on a recording is
that we have, we can help move the needle.
So it's got to be top down with these, you know,
elimination of the mandates, stopping gender-affirming care,
and no MRNA platform, things like that.
But that's, and yeah, there's a lot of money
to keep that stuff going, right?
But we still have the freedom to choose.
And I want to say we do not have to be on the defenses anymore.
We should not be on the defenses.
We are right.
We act like we're right, and we act like it's totally normal
to speak like, you know, we don't take that jab.
We don't do anything.
I was with, it was about maybe Christmas 2023.
I was sitting, having a Christmas dinner with some colleagues
and they were talking about, gosh, you know,
who's got the latest booster?
And then someone else drummed in, how do we get,
I can't find a place to get the flu vaccine and the booster
at the same time and I immediately just shot up and said,
I'm not taking that poison.
I never did, never will.
And then there was a glitch in the matrix.
And, you know, my friends were all short circuiting for a minute.
And then they kind of ignored me.
And then they went on talking.
And I'm like, okay.
And then it was like, and then they just went on.
And then it got on to some other vaccines.
And then there was like earthquakes and things like that.
But it turns out, then a year later,
Then we're having some casual conversation.
And then the tone shifted slightly.
No one would admit to anything.
No one would say that was right.
But they're like, you know, you could hear just the tone of,
you know, things were calming down.
And so just standing your ground and knowing that, you know,
you know you're right, you've always been right.
And this is, and there's a silent majority of people
like what Clayton was saying.
Like, who really thinks that, hmm, you know,
I think there's something going on.
It just doesn't pass a smell test.
And I think once we begin to really stand up
and normalize this conversation of what actually is normal
about all these things, right, and then advocate with your feet.
Now, because the, and sometimes you're forced to.
I have a lot of patients that can't go
to their regular pediatrician anymore
because they will not sign the form.
When you want to join a pediatric practice, a new parents
or maybe a new policy and the doctor you've always gone to
or taken your kids to, you have to sign on the line.
You will vaccinate your child according
to the mandated schedule, the CDC,
or you cannot join the practice.
That is true.
And patients are being kicked out of pediatric practices
because they do not adhere to the vaccine schedule.
Now, it's not just that.
I mean, there's lots of practices,
but that is the one mandate.
And the practices, you know, they have a right to do that,
I suppose, if you want to lose your patience.
It's been good for my business, so maybe I shouldn't complain
too hard, but no, it's not right.
But that's an example.
You vote with your feet.
And listen, I love my patients.
My patients are educated.
They know what's going on.
They will ask me questions, and they've heard this and that,
and some of them succumb to other fear, right?
There's even people, there's all kinds of fear being put out,
and it's not all from the other side, so to speak, right?
So, but I am challenged to study.
I am challenged to learn.
I am challenged to provide true informed consent.
I cannot provide consent if I myself am not informed and the problem is
that a lot of the doctors, because they're following orders,
they don't have time because the corporate practices make them see 40,
50, some more patients a day and they don't have time to think.
I think that's by design.
And so I am challenged and so I appreciate that,
although it really makes my job harder.
But they're asking really good questions and they're voting
with their feet about where to put that.
But you also, but it can be overwhelming.
Oh my gosh, we've got this, we've got the jazz, we've got mandates,
we've got all this stuff and all these policies to pay attention,
you can't keep track.
I would encourage you to pick something that you're passionate about,
something that affects your family, your children in particular,
something you can get your head around, something that you want
to understand better and learn that.
And maybe someone else in your mom's club or maybe someone else
in your Bible study, they'll get on something else
and you educate each other
and then you find a local grassroots advocacy organization
and then you get on touch with that.
Maybe you have a, thank you for this suggestion, you know,
you have a template of an email that you're going to email all
of your local state and federal representatives.
Every week it's the same thing, like I do not stand for this.
I expect you to do this.
This is how I word all my letters.
I expect you, as your constituent, I expect you to vote no
or vote yes on this because of blah, blah, blah.
Just shorten to the point.
And so this is the way that we bring it together from the top down
and from the bottom up because this is a good old US of A
and we can still do that.
And having lived in lots of other countries,
I can tell you that this freedom is precious and we must use it.
we must, you know, Benjamin Franklin said it's a republic,
you know, if we can keep it.
And I think, yeah, I think that's,
I think I have other points, but maybe I'll remember
that in a minute, but yeah, I just want to say, yeah,
we can do this, we can do this.
And all of you are proof.
So patient empowerment is one side of the coin, and I'm not sure
if this is exactly the other side.
Maybe it's a three-sided coin, but trust.
Trust got broken.
Dr. Biss, you mentioned that maybe within the confines
of needing to keep the board certification so you can continue
to operate within a hospital system.
Is there, would I be wrong in, I've developed a point of view
which is unless I'm arterially spurting,
I'm not going to the hospital, right?
And that was after watching the COVID ventilator remdesivir
fiasco go down.
Direct pressure, Chris.
Direct pressure.
Direct pressure, yep.
Just at one finger?
If it's a minor spurt, apply direct pressure.
Okay, thanks.
Wait five minutes, yes.
It's good to know.
All right.
Free medical advice.
Okay. But is it, I mean,
should we really be trusting system doctors less
than maybe independent doctors at this point?
Is that the bifurcation that's stood up here?
Is that for me?
Yeah. Yeah.
Definitely, there's not a lot of trust.
I mean, I think they came out with that study last year
in JAMA, if I'm not correct.
But I've seen a definite shift.
I mean, my patients, the majority of them
only had three of the injections.
Very few had four or more, because they
started to see that their friends were having
miscarriages or problems.
Or their parents that had three, four, five, six shots
by that point had COVID 10 times and it wasn't working
or their grandparents developed some ungodly condition
that they never had prior.
So they started to question and I would say
that would probably be in the latter portion of 2022
into 2023 where I could have these conversations.
I never recommended these to any of my patients by the way,
full disclosure, but I will tell you in the first year
that they rolled out, I would tell patients not to get these
and they would call the office later and complain about me
and they refused to come see me.
So there was a definite shift from that year until next year.
But the trust, and I think it's a good thing
that patients have lost trust in us
because the way we've been doing things has been awful.
I mean, preventative care is really,
especially in a pediatric office, is, you know,
just to go, just to give your kids vaccines.
I mean, it used to be you didn't vaccinate somebody
if they were sick, but you go to a pediatrician
and the first thing they look up in your chart is, oh,
you're late for your shots, so we're going
to give you these three shots even though you're here
for a sick visit.
Well, they're doing that now in the hospitals.
You show up and you're admitted for whatever
and you get a flu vaccine and whatever else.
Well, usually when you go into the hospital, you're sick,
you know, but it's all money.
You know, the hospitals get incentivized just
And by the way, you know, there's a schedule for vaccines in pediatrics.
There will be one in obstetrics, I'd be willing to bet, because, you know, there's four vaccines
that women are recommended to get now, which will be flu, COVID, RSV, and the Tdap for
pertussis.
Well, now that parents are questioning the 24-hour-of-life hepatitis B vaccine, which
makes no sense. The powers that be are saying well that's fine we're just going to start
giving that to pregnant women while they're pregnant. So there's going to be a schedule.
There's no data that I'm aware of showing that giving more than one vaccine to a pregnant
woman or any vaccine for that matter is safe as far as you know maybe that's what's causing
preterm labor all over the map that we've never really been able to figure out what
causes that, but, and I foresee
that obstetricians will be financially incentivized
and people will be kicked out of practices
and maybe delivery awards for those reasons for, you know, refusing.
So hopefully that will never come to be with the new powers
that be in the administration,
but there's already some chatter about that.
Interesting.
So in speaking of empowerment,
and Dr. Lynn Howard mentioned AI before.
To me, that's one of my empowerment tools
and I've been reading some incredible things
where Grok has been able to sort of parse through even lab results
and give you a starting point.
Is it, are we entering an age
where the patient can have a more informed conversation and it's more
of a partnership with their doctor?
I think, I think that's a good thing and I think, but, you know,
having experience of having patients are informed, but only partially
And that's why I'm really encouraged by the vision
to have a new medical school because, you know,
it's only as good as the physician's ability
to do our own research and being able to parse out good
from bad research and recommendations
and things like that.
And that's why it's important for us to know what's good,
how to read studies, and know where to find, you know,
quality things because the patients,
they're reading off everything.
And, you know, we've all noticed trends in certain,
I think it's this, I won't, I'm going to mention anything,
but it's like there's trends in the complaints that you're,
and the questions our patients are asking.
And I think that's really valuable.
I think I like my better informed patients
because it really challenges me.
But at the same time, we really have to stay on top of things
and understand how to best guide them and work with it.
Like I love the, and what I want to say, you know,
another thing is to support your independent doctors,
whether some doctors really do because of the nature
of their practice, they have to be hospital-based.
And so they have to be in a corporation.
They have to be hospital-based.
They have to work in a big practice and be insurance-based.
I am fortunate that I can work outside that insurance company
because I just have a cash-based practice.
But really having, but you need to know this system.
But patients for their primary care, find someone
that will spend the time and answer your questions
and take time to do that.
I think that's another way to do that.
But then being able to connect with colleagues that have to be,
you know, like Dr. Litmus, you know,
just has to be based in a hospital.
And then so that we need to support those big picture advocacy
from the top down to be able to protect those doctors
and Dr. Baker at the VA, right, to protect doctors who are freedom-minded
in practices and specialties that are hospital-based.
Do you have anything to add to that, Dr. Baker?
I think she said pretty much what I had to say.
Good. I agree.
All right.
Thank you.
All right.
Well done.
All right, we've got a few questions here.
The first one, top one, I guess this would be probably for you,
Dr. Biss, but anybody.
Have you seen an increase in polycystic ovarian disease
in vaccinated women?
And by the, just to set this up a little bit,
we saw Tucker Carlson, we had Dr. Patrick Siong, and he said, oh,
we're seeing this increase in cancer, he was talking about,
but he said, well, we don't know if it's from COVID itself
or from the vaccine.
How do we not know?
This seems like one of the easiest questions to answer
in medical science, right?
But yeah.
I mean, we definitely, I've personally not seen an increase
in that, but definitely in the beginning
when the shots were rolled out and even in the various data.
But Dr. Thorpe published a study using the,
my cycle story patients showing an increase
in the abnormal menstrual cycles,
which a lot of the women were gaslit right away, like, well,
so what, you had a bad cycle.
But, I mean, that's how we work, right?
So go figure, then the miscarriages
and the infertility followed.
I mean, if you're going to, you know,
screw with the menstrual cycle.
But definitely, you know, people that had endometriosis
that definitely got worse in some patients.
What I saw in my gynecology patients as well,
my abnormal pap smear rates went up by 15 percent.
And that's probably because of reactivation of HPV virus.
Breast cancer is up, and my local breast cancer surgeon,
which by the way, you know,
we're all kind of little islands finding each other,
you know, like-minded doctors.
And I thought I was the only one in St. Pete
who thought the way I did.
But we just realized we've been thinking the same way
for the last three years.
But in any event, she told me
that her breast cancer statistics have definitely
increased in women in the 40s, years of age, and much more are presenting with bilateral
cancers right off the bat, which is not common with breast cancer.
So that's definitely going up.
Dr. Baker, any changes in your practice, observations?
Over the sort of short to intermediate term when the vaccines so-called were first rolled
out 2021, say maybe till 2023, during that period where people got their, one of you
said they got their three shots and then stopped, I saw a marked increase specifically in strokes
and MIs, it was mostly clotting-based vascular disorders that I saw an increase in.
More distal to that now, it's more malignancies, which is broadly speaking.
And I think that what we're seeing obviously is these are not the same, this is not the
same pathology, this is not the same pathological, pathophysiological mechanism going on here.
And, you know, it's a subject for an oncologist or for an immunologist when you see an increase
say in bilateral breast cancers, you know, huge increase in my practice in lung cancer,
particularly in people that have not smoked for many years.
Still mostly smokers, but people that, you know, perhaps are in that 10 to 20 years that
they quit where you wouldn't expect that.
And synchronous lung cancers, I mean, there's something you almost never saw and I've seen
two cases in the last year that I remember.
And to me, you know, is that an up regulation in formation of malignant cells or is that
a down regulation in immune response to malignancy or is it both?
I don't know.
So those, they're very worrisome things.
They're absolutely the case.
I would just say that given the time frame of those things,
and this is very anecdotal, but given the time frame of the trends
that I witnessed, it doesn't make sense.
It's COVID to me.
It makes sense.
It makes sense.
It's the jab, 100%.
Yep.
Dr. Welch, same question.
Well, unfortunately, I can't answer that question
because the vaccination rate in my practice is abysmally low.
So, no change?
So no change.
Well, speaking of that sort of proximal versus distal effects clotting
and now cancers, Dr. Breidl is asking, is the FDA's safety cut off
for DNA contamination, which I touched on briefly, in vaccine vials,
based on naked or LNP-associated DNA,
uptake of that DNA would be two orders
of magnitude greater with LNPs.
And the way I think about this is if somebody says, oh,
they've established DNA limits at the FDA,
but that's for extracellular DNA.
This is pushing it intracellular.
So it's kind of like I have a very different body limit
for extracellular bullets versus bullets you shoot into my body.
Totally different LD50 on that, right?
So what are your thoughts here?
Anybody have a response to this?
Yeah, I mean, the FDA quickly came out and said
that there's a safe amount of DNA that can be injected in humans,
which is based on, I believe, one rat study, and it was naked DNA
that was not protected by lipid nanoparticles, so they can't sit there
and say that, you know, the DNA that's found
in these vials is a safe level.
Have any studies ever been done for the intracellular?
that's what an LNP does, it transfects.
I used transfection things in my lab days.
It's very different extracellular, intracellular.
How could the FDA not know that?
They know the difference.
Come on.
That's like 101 level, isn't it?
They know all this stuff.
They know all this stuff.
Anything to add to that?
No? All right.
So, well, Anonymous is asking, can the IMA push HHS
to honor informed consent, promote R&D and alternatives right
to decline, outlaw compulsory practice requirement regarding
vaccines?
That's a policy question.
I don't know if I have a good answer for that at all in my head.
Does anybody know what that?
Well, I guess what I would say to that is, again, and I don't mean
to sound like a broken record, but I think that we really need to look
at the level of the recommendations, which I think are really important
because we now have, we, you know, the current administration clearly has,
you know, reasonable people in place at most levels at the top
and has the capacity to change those recommendations.
And I think that that's relatively low-hanging fruit.
I think that the mandated aspect of things,
that's compulsory practice requirements and whatnot,
is always, I'm not saying it can't be done,
but it's always trickier because it happens
at the state level, it happens.
I think just the way that I saw COVID work was
that everyone listened to the CDC when it came to,
all the states just parroted the CDC.
Some ignored it, but all the ones that pushed down to school districts.
I got into this whole thing fighting the school district initially in 2020.
And it was all, well, the CDC says this.
Well, the CDC is corrupt and I'll prove it to you.
It doesn't matter.
That's what the CDC says.
And so, and I believe at some level that's probably simplistic,
but I think it's part of the reason why they absolutely stood the ground
at Weldon, because the CDC, even though it's been largely discredited
in a lot of people's mind, still puts those recommendations
out that the states follow almost in lockstep.
And so, proximally, it takes years to, not years necessarily,
but it takes longer to really get the FDA to pull something.
But the minute you say, we shouldn't be giving any shots
to pregnant women, wait a minute.
you know, now all of a sudden you've got this is a quick line
in the sand and a state government has got to say,
well, we don't believe the CDC, which they've been doing
for the last, I don't know how many decades,
just blindly following the CDC.
And so I think that that's really,
it's not going to solve the problem,
but I think it makes a huge difference.
And again, I really believe that certainly most doctors are going
to follow the CDC guidelines.
If it's done in a prompt and sensible manner and it's explained why,
I think that's a huge step in the right direction.
And I would encourage it to be done sooner than later.
Because a lot of, and the other reason is a lot of us in here are like,
I mean I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
What are we waiting for?
So I really think that's important to do in the short to medium term.
Okay, great.
Yes?
Yeah, no, just something to add on to that.
Because, you know, we're talking about the science.
Does it make sense?
I mean, you know, the science is there, FDA knows, CDC knows,
but yet they still say the published,
the publications will say like, yeah, this doesn't look good
for the shots, but, you know, in the abstracts,
but we still recommend taking it, right?
And it's because we see, I mean, COVID was the thing
that blew the lid off of it, but we're looking at an ideology.
You know, we're talking with, you know, we're going to talk tomorrow
about the transgender craze and this ideology.
And then in spite of what true science says, in spite of what true data
and real medical science says, there's an ideological narrative
that must be followed, right?
And so this is another example.
I mean, and this is the obvious example that we, that kind of blew,
you know, the scales off a lot of our eyes.
But it doesn't matter.
This is why it really is a fight that, you know,
you don't believe your lion eyes, right?
And this is why it's so important for the everyday person to understand
that you're being lied to, right, and then understand that you are
and understand how to combat that in your community and being able
to stand up because in spite of what the FDA, the CDC or whatever mandate
or your doctor that's following orders from the AAP or the AFP
or AMA or whatever, and that, you know, this is why we have
to know what objective truth really is and that it still exists
because the science is, you know, the new shirt that I saw,
like the science is, you know, never settled, right?
But that you have to understand that we're not, you can,
this is why it doesn't make sense and why we're struggling so much
because you can have the data
and yet the recommendations go the opposite way, right?
And so that's why it's so frustrating is
because it's not a fair fight and you're not fighting
on the same level ground.
They're fighting with ideological narrative
to push their own agenda, but yet we still want to do what's right.
So, I mean it's frustrating, but when you know that,
when you know what you're fighting
and you know sort of what the tools are,
then we're better equipped to do something about it.
Indeed, and I take a lot of heart from say what James Lindsay was saying
that in New Zealand from the outside you might think they really went all
in on the nuts, but when you go there,
you find out that's not how it is anymore.
I would suggest that we're actually more powerful than we know,
and I live by the anecdote at these turning moments in history,
and one of them that caught me was probably
about the same time you found people were like,
three shots and I'm out.
I'm reading these articles where people felt emboldened to say,
I'm not getting vaccines for my dog, right?
Because sometimes we can move more quickly into our pets
than we can even ourselves for some reason.
It's a safe place to go.
Nobody's going to look at you sideways
if you don't get your dog vaccinated.
But they will read the riot act to you
if you don't get your child vaccinated for whatever reason.
But that to me represents movement in this story.
That people are starting to unravel the story
that these things maybe aren't all that.
And I would have, Clayton, I would have been one of those people.
Pre-COVID, I'm unbalanced positive on vaccines
because that's what I was taught.
And I didn't have any evidence against that.
Now I'm, now fundamentally the whole thing is
until they give me the data, it's all off the table.
Well, one thing I would say, and I learned this earlier than COVID,
although I was still very conventional about vaccines
with some limitations prior to COVID, but my patients are veterans.
And my patients told me the story, a disproportionate number
of them wouldn't get the flu shot here historically.
I hear it gives you the flu.
And I said, you know, I don't really think that's true,
but I always respect it.
I said, I don't think you need it.
It's fine.
But why do you, just curiosity, why do you feel this way?
And this is years before COVID.
They said, Doc, when I, vets always call you Doc.
I don't call them vet, but they always call me Doc.
But anyway, but anyway, they would say one after the other, Doc,
do you know what the gun was?
And I said, well, I assume it was your, you know, your M16.
No, no, no.
You would go through basic training, and they had this gun,
this vaccine gun, and they would go pew, pew, pew, pew,
right down the line.
And then there'd be another gun, and they'd go pew, pew, pew.
You'd all get six shots.
And he said the whole company was flat on their backs,
sick as a dog for three days.
He said, I don't like vaccines.
And I thought for a second,
after the sixth time someone said this, and I said,
you know, the guy has a point.
This isn't new.
This is not new.
You know, this has been going on for a long time.
And I don't want to get, you know, we're out of time,
But this is something we, as patient empowerment,
you have to listen to yourself.
I can't tell you how many cardiologists I say the guy gets these horrible leg
cramps on his statin.
And they say, oh, that's the wives' tale.
But when 10 people in a row tell you this, and yes, vets go to the,
go to the, go and hang out at the VHA, you know, and have a beer.
But they talk together, but they're not colluding to tell me
to get them off the statin.
When 10 people come in and tell you it makes your legs ache,
you should listen to them.
It's like Bobby Kennedy saying when these moms just kept saying,
my kid was fine until they got all these shots.
And it's the arrogance that our profession has
to dismiss people out of hand.
And you got to tell your patients this, if this made you sick
or you think this made you sick, if you got any sense whatsoever,
you should think three times before you ever consent
to doing it again.
And we should empower, and we should tell all
our friends this and you can say oh this crazy Dr. Baker told you this but you
know you should tell all of your friends and family if this made you sick you
don't do it again that's just self-preservation and that's a part of
the patient empowerment that I think we really need at a very base level that
we really need to reinforce with people. Thank you for that Dr. Dis, Dr. Baker, Dr.
Well, thank you so much.
