Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
January 29, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In an extraordinary recent presentation exposing “the serious and life-threatening disinformation campaign” being waged against the American people and the world, Dr. Simone Gold of the American Frontline Doctors (AFLD) laid out the facts on the Wuhan Virus, safe highly-effective treatments, and particularly what she calls “experimental biological agents,” otherwise referred to as the COVID-19 vaccines.
Dr. Gold referred listeners to two AFLD websites where they can access a white paper produced by the AFLD physicians that provides thorough explanations and references for her presentation. Gold concluded her presentation with a passionate appeal for everyone to sign and spread a petition against authoritarian movements aimed at coercing individuals into receiving these injections.
The group’s white paper brings an array of crucial information together and is clear, accessible and well-documented. It reflects not only a depth of competence and great facility on the topics but a resolute commitment to truth and a deep fidelity to the noble mission of providing sound medical care for patients while defending the common good at large.
Highlights of the paper and Dr. Gold’s presentation include the following:
Correct language is ‘critical’: Not COVID-19 ‘vaccines,’ but experimental biological agents
Dr. Gold insists that even the designation of the new products as vaccines is inapprorpriate.
“Definitely you should not be calling this the ‘COVID-19 vaccines,’” she says. “The reason is, whatever you call it, it’s experimental. It’s not been approved as a vaccine. It’s currently in its investigational stage.”
The initial FAQ of the white paper explains, “According to the Food and Drug Administration, ‘An investigational drug can also be called an experimental drug and is being studied to see if your disease or medical condition improves while taking it.’ Pfizer and Moderna and AstraZeneca applications properly identify their new agents as ‘investigational,’ which is normal at this very early stage of development.”
The paper goes on to confirm that this experimental status means that “adverse events will be settled under the legal standard for experimental medications.”
As part of this experimental status, Dr. Gold explained, “If you take the vaccine, you’re being enrolled in a pharmocol vigilance tracking system. It means you have enrolled yourself in a medical trial … most people are not aware that that’s what they’re doing. This pharmocol vigilance tracking system tracks you for (at least) two years, it’s set up by the Department of Defense, it was handed off to Oracle and Google to put the data together. How is it that people want to sign up for this system on an experimental (biological agent)?” she asked.
Thus, the founder of AFLD affirmed these injected treatments are “most properly called experimental biological agents. … We need to call this by its proper name. Never talk about this without the word ‘experimental.’ That’s critical,” she said.
‘Wuhan Virus’ to ‘COVID-19’
In the presentation, Dr. Gold called the massive “disinformation campaign” on these topics “a crime against humanity” and stated, “You must understand the magnitude of the lie in order to understand what they are trying to tell you about these experimental vaccines.”
As the paper observed, “from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,” there has been “massive disinformation” beginning with its very name.
Initially, and naturally, the pandemic was referred to as the “Wuhan Virus” since “epidemics have historically been named for the location from where they arise or are associated. Consider: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Spanish Flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Lyme Disease,” they wrote.
But this name was massively “rebranded” to “COVID-19” due to the displeasure of the Chinese Communist Party with the original name.
Greatest disinformation: Hydroxychloroquine
The paper documented in some depth the “(m)ost notable” disinformation regarding the pandemic, which “was selling the lie to the American and European people that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is an unsafe medication.” They detailed how the lie was advanced by “Scientists,” the “Media & The Elite,” “Big Tech Censorship,” and with “Government Punishment of Doctors.”
As HCQ is “considered one of the safest medications in the world, safer than Motrin or Tylenol,” it has been broadly used outside the west with great success. For example, in response to the virus, both China and India mandated or recommended HCQ for its population early last year, and at least India, “continues to enjoy a death rate a fraction (~10 percent) of the USA even in the most densely populated slums.”
“So in America the death rates are in the 800 range per million,” Dr. Gold explained. “In Africa, Sub-Sahara Africa, the poorest places in the world, no social distancing, no mask, no ICU’s, they have a death rate of one percent the western nations. One percent!”
“Now I believe it is due to widely available HCQ. I don’t think you can explain it for any other reason,” she said.
The paper provided thorough documentation on how “(c)ountries where HCQ is widely available, which are typically third world countries that have malaria or citizens who travel to malaria-endemic regions, have 1-10 percent of the death rates of first world nations where HCQ is severely restricted.”
Extremely high survival rate / low infection fatality rate for Wuhan Virus
“The most enduring myth regarding COVID-19,” the doctors wrote, “is that this is a highly lethal infection. It is not. The data is unequivocal:
- COVID-19 kills very rarely and is mostly limited to the medically fragile,
- COVID-19 is less deadly than influenza in children,
- COVID-19 is similar lethality in the middle adult years and treatable.”
They went on to cite the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) own “best estimate” to demonstrate that the infection fatality rate (IFR) is overall very low:
- 0-19 years old: 0.00003 (99.997 percent survival rate)
- 20-49 years old: 0.0002 (99.98 percent survival rate)
- 50-69 years old: 0.005 (99.5 percent survival rate)
- 70+ years old: 0.054 (94.6 percent survival rate)
Further, in the presentation, Dr. Gold emphasized that these very high survival rates reflect cases where people have not received treatment with HCQ, or another “miracle” drug, ivermectin, and thus with such simple, inexpensive treatments, they would be much higher still. Gold referenced the testimony of doctors before a U.S. Senate committee in November who said if such treatments had been available, very high numbers of lives could have been saved.
In the paper, the doctors observed, “It is quite clear that young people are at a statistically insignificant risk of death from COVID-19,” and for most people under 65, “the risk of dying from COVID-19 isn’t much higher than from getting in a car accident driving to work.”
Safety concerns for experimental vaccines
In contrast to the utilization of safe treatments like HCQ and ivermectin, there are many significant safety concerns with these experimental vaccines.
Brand new mRNA technology
First, what the doctors call the “largest experimental medication program in our history” uses a brand-new technology utilizing messenger RNA. “No vaccine” based on this technology “has ever been approved for any disease, or even entered final-stage trials until now, so there’s no peer-reviewed published human data to compare how mRNA stacks up against older technologies,” AFLD said.
No independently published animal studies
Further, previous coronavirus vaccines developed over decades have consistently failed in animal trials with the death of their subjects. Yet, these experimental vaccines have no independently published animal studies.
“Vaccine safety requires proper animal trials and peer-reviewed data,” the paper stated, “neither of which has occurred” with these experimental biological agents.
Recipient may become more vulnerable to virus
The AFLD White Paper stated that one of the greatest safety concerns relates to how “(p)rior coronavirus (and other respiratory) vaccines have failed due to the scientific phenomena known as pathogenic priming that makes the vaccine recipient more likely to suffer a sudden fatal outcome due to massive cytokine storm when exposed to the wild virus.”
Of note, current reports revealed that hundreds of individuals injected with COVID-19 experimental vaccines have been admitted to the hospital, and the shots have so far been linked to at least 181 deaths in the United States.
Neurological diseases, long-term effects
The paper listed many other possible complications, including neurological diseases, and cited from the “extremely limited COVID-19 vaccine data” instances of them already occurring.
There is also no data on sub-categories of the population, including the elderly, women who desire to get pregnant, those who have had the Wuhan Virus already, and since these experimental agents are brand new, “we cannot know any long-term effects.”
In addition, these chemicals may impact a woman’s fertility. The paper explained that the “mechanism of action of the experimental mRNA vaccines includes a possible auto-immune rejection of the placenta. In layman’s terms, the vaccine may permanently interfere with a woman’s ability to maintain a pregnancy.”
“The vaccine companies themselves acknowledge the possibility of ill effects on a pregnancy on the vaccine bottle, which says the following: ‘it is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA VaccineBNT162b2 has an impact on fertility,’” the doctors wrote.
Dr. Gold emphasized, “I would never let a woman of child-bearing age take this. I would fight tooth and nail (to prevent it), under no circumstances, until this placenta question is answered.”
Manufactures have no liability
Of great concern as well is the fact that the companies that produce these experimental biological agents “are immune from all liability” due to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Therefore, those who are injured or even the families of those who suffer death due to these injections will have no claim on the manufacturers themselves.
Experimental vaccines are ‘not safer’ than the Wuhan Virus
AFLD then drew from common sense to conclude that taking an experimental vaccine “is not safer” than a very low IFR for the Wuhan Virus. Besides the “extraordinarily low” mortality rates, doctors are “getting better and better at treating COVID-19: the death rate in terms of population continues to fall, hospital stays for COVID-19 get shorter and hospital mortality from COVID-19 plummets.”
While not directly asserting that the experimental vaccines are unsafe, AFLD clarified that “We are saying that by definition it is unsafe to widely distribute an experimental vaccine, because taking a vaccine is completely different than taking an ordinary medication.”
“In contrast to taking a medication for an actual disease,” they explained, “the person who takes a vaccine is typically completely healthy and would continue to be healthy without the vaccine. As the first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is: do no harm, vaccine safety must be guaranteed. That has not yet happened.”
No proof that the experimental vaccines stop transmission of the virus
The doctors highlighted that there is no data on whether or not these experimental agents are actually capable of stopping the transmission of the virus. They affirmed that the “scientists are very upfront about the fact that they don’t know if the vaccine even stops the spread of the virus!”
They cited a Medscape article that quotes a former FDA official who said, “(w)e don’t know if people can become infected and thus also transmit even with vaccination.” For this reason, “people can expect to still be wearing masks, still be asked to follow non-pharmaceutical public health measures that we’ve all come to know so well.”
In dismay, Dr. Gold explained this point in her presentation, saying, “What is super shocking is that there is no proof that this biological agent actually stops the transmission among people. It’s like a joke, this is like the punch line to a joke, ‘let’s take a vaccine, and by the way it doesn’t actually stop transmission.’ I mean, I don’t even know what to say to that!”
AFLD recommendations regarding COVID-19 experimental vaccines
Based on the IFR by age, along with real potential dangers, AFLD came up with recommendations for who should not submit themselves to these experimental biological agents and who may have an option to.
In summary, they stated, that such injections are “Prohibited for the young, Discouraged for the healthy middle-aged and Optional for the co-morbid and elderly.”
Dr. Gold commented, “If you are under age 20, the experimental vaccine is prohibited, in our opinion, absolutely prohibited. We simply don’t know enough about its effects on fertility, and we do know that this virus, essentially does not affect young people. Essentially,” with regards to young people, COVID-19 is “irrelevant!”
“From age 20 to 50, if you are healthy, we strongly discourage,” your receiving this experimental agent, she said. “There is an exceedingly low risk,” as well.
In their white paper, the AFLD summarized their advice to different sections of the population regarding the vaccines.
a. 0-20: prohibited(exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
b. 20-50 healthy: strongly discouraged (exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
c. 50-69 & healthy: strongly discouraged (low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, unknown effect on placenta and spermatogenesis)
d. 50-69 & co-morbid: discouraged (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
e. >70 & healthy: personal risk assessment (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
f. >70 & co-morbid: personal risk assessment & advocacy access (experimental vaccine early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
The doctors concluded, “In medicine, the guiding principle is ‘First, do no harm.’ Widely distributing a COVID-19 experimental vaccine before adequately addressing and clinically evaluating the above concerns is reckless.”
Indeed, they charge that it is, in fact, “unethical to advocate for the vaccine to persons under 50. The risk and safety evidence based upon trials cannot be justified in younger persons. It is therefore prohibited.”
They also promised to do everything they can to assist injured plaintiffs who sue pharmaceutical companies, private businesses or government agencies who mandate or coerce “persons to comply with unethical policies for which there is substantial evidence of likely harm.”
Call to action: Sign and spread the petition
In response to projected vaccine mandates, Dr. Gold announced, “We intend to fight the urge that’s sweeping the globe to mandate people taking an experimental biological agent.”
AFLD is not primarily concerned with the government, but with private businesses mandating these injections, particularly schools and airlines.
“We intend to talk to the decision-makers in the airline industry,” she said. “One of our tools in that battle will be to go in armed with at least, 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 are not going to fly with anyone who is going to mandate (experimental vaccines).’”
She encouraged everyone to “go to StopMedicalDiscrimination.org and sign the petition. You also must share that petition with everyone. Do not be shy! … it is your obligation. I’ve done my part, my doctors have done their part, you must do your part.”
“Not only do you sign it, (but) each of you should take it on yourself to say, ‘I’m going to make sure I get a thousand signatures’,” she said.
Gold also encouraged those who are in a union to build advocacy against these injections within their union.
And finally, she reminded her audience, “ALWAYS use the word ‘EXPERIMENTAL’ when you talk about this. Always!”