However, the bottom line is no medical intervention should be mandatory. True informed consent means being able to refuse any medical intervention for any reason or no reason at all.
Those of us who have been in the medical/health freedom movement for decades do not want “safer” vaccines. We want to be able to refuse vaccines or any medical intervention and not be punished for it. Until this happens, there is no informed consent or medical freedom.
The medical journals and newsletters are still trying to convince practitioners that there is no conflict of interest and that “vaccines” are safe and effective. I saw an article recently that said people who go to an emergency department and found not to be up-to-date with the vaccine schedule are more likely to agree to receive the missing “vaccines” while in the ED. A visit to the ED could be a stressful time for anyone. How many of those people who accepted those “vaccines” were under a form of duress when they agreed to it and really understood what they were agreeing to.
When I was a young mother, I trusted my son's pediatrician. I never thought to question him to my detriment. I thought that he had an education and knew all there was to know about keeping children well. My trust could have killed my first child...The doctor gave me very poor nutritional information, which contributed to the child's poor health (foods loaded with sugar) Then, he started him on vaccines and it is a miracle he survived. Then, when the boy was 4-1/2, he put him on tranquilizers for hyperactivity, caused by the foods he recommended. It was at this point in time fate stepped in: A good friend handed me books and said, "Start reading. You are listening to the wrong people." When I opened the first books, the first two things I read connected the dots: "Sugar creates hyperactivity" and "Tranquilizers STUNT the developing organs of children." I was shocked to think that my doctor didn't know this information.. It propelled me in 1961 to get into the study of health and nutrition myself. No more thinking that doctors knew everything and had all the answers.
I see a problem with the notion that "... healthy children get few or no vaccines and those at higher risk for communicable disease get a greater burden of immunizations depending on the risk parameters for infection." It's my understanding that one of the principles of vaccines is they should never be given to the sick or otherwise health-compromised (humans or animals). This went out the window during COVID, obviously, but now I'm seeing it presented as an alternative to vaccinating everyone/all children.
How is it that the most vulnerable among us, including tiny babies with established health issues, are the best candidates to receive potentially harmful/life-threatening "immunizations"? It needs to be clearly demonstrated, with HONEST science, not the "science" we saw during COVID, that "those at higher risk for communicable disease" will BENEFIT from, not ultimately SUFFER from, vaccination. And the explanation for why we should inject the vulnerable needs to be crystal clear.
I am deeply troubled with those who are injured seemingly being held out as the acceptable scapegoats for keeping the shots, or even exemptions, available. Imagine parents who are struggling to help their child survive all day every day. Imagine making the choice to vaccinate because you are told your fragile child will die without it. Then you hear it doesn't leave the body, has long term health implications, and your child starts declining. We know parents who are suffering from agonizing regret. But the medical community still talks about holding it out for those with underlying conditions as an actual good option for some. I find this unconscionable and horrifying, and I do not believe these are good for ANYONE, ESPECIALLY those who are ALREADY ill, anymore than they are good for the elderly, children, pregnant moms, or ANY vulnerable person!!! The sick are not expendable, even when it is put in terms of offering them exemptions!!!
Incidentally, the prevalence of those with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (especially the most common, hypermobile, systemic form) which goes hand in hand with mast cell activation and dysautonomia among other things is moving from 1/5,000 to 1/250-1/500 in the research. Some experts believe it is as prevalent as 1/100. These patients usually have a boatload of underlying health conditions from systemic damage/micro-tears in connective tissue throughout the entire body (skin, muscles, bones, ligaments, muscles, organs, joints, eyes, etc.) and therefore already have an ongoing inflammatory response. The lining of their blood vessels are already compromised, and they definitely don't need more ongoing inflammatory damage from the spike protein. Mast cells (1,200 different mediators) are degranulating out of control in the connective tissue of many patients with these conditions. There is a high prevalence of autism in this patient population as well. We are seeing MCAS, dysautonomia, neurological complications, peripheral nerve damage, mitochondrial dysfunction, autoimmune conditions like Hashimotos, blood clots, bleeding disorders, CVSTs, aneurysms, strokes, intracranial hypertension and hypotension, csf leaks, gastroparesis, etc., in these patients already. Does there seem to be overlap with what we are seeing in Covid "vaccine injury"?Connecting even the most obvious dots, what would make it EVER a good thing to mandate, withhold exemptions for, or even recommend vaccines for these suffering people, especially knowing these products contain adjuvants, synthetic components, foreign DNA, etc., that their bodies are surely going to struggle to process. I think we need to be very careful we are not crossing a moral/ethical line here of thinking that this might still be "worth a shot" for these incredibly vulnerable people. I happen to know people in this patient population who have been deeply impacted and harmed the last five years! Several doctors have been trying to call attention to this group of EDS/hypermobile/sensitive group of patients who may be more prone to Long Covid, Covid "vaccine" injury, and even shedding, including Dr, Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, and Dr. Jordan Vaughn. They are very much on to something!!!
Thank you Dr. McCullough for your lucid explanation of the current situation as we reflect on the recent pandemic years. Young parents in particular need this reasoned approach to childhood vaccinations. The media fear-mongering has to be exposed. RFK Jr. is setting a fine example globally for better public health outcomes by simply removing the known and suspected causes of ill health. Kids deserve better protection!
No doubt the 1986 Act needs to be repealed.
However, the bottom line is no medical intervention should be mandatory. True informed consent means being able to refuse any medical intervention for any reason or no reason at all.
Those of us who have been in the medical/health freedom movement for decades do not want “safer” vaccines. We want to be able to refuse vaccines or any medical intervention and not be punished for it. Until this happens, there is no informed consent or medical freedom.
The medical journals and newsletters are still trying to convince practitioners that there is no conflict of interest and that “vaccines” are safe and effective. I saw an article recently that said people who go to an emergency department and found not to be up-to-date with the vaccine schedule are more likely to agree to receive the missing “vaccines” while in the ED. A visit to the ED could be a stressful time for anyone. How many of those people who accepted those “vaccines” were under a form of duress when they agreed to it and really understood what they were agreeing to.
When I was a young mother, I trusted my son's pediatrician. I never thought to question him to my detriment. I thought that he had an education and knew all there was to know about keeping children well. My trust could have killed my first child...The doctor gave me very poor nutritional information, which contributed to the child's poor health (foods loaded with sugar) Then, he started him on vaccines and it is a miracle he survived. Then, when the boy was 4-1/2, he put him on tranquilizers for hyperactivity, caused by the foods he recommended. It was at this point in time fate stepped in: A good friend handed me books and said, "Start reading. You are listening to the wrong people." When I opened the first books, the first two things I read connected the dots: "Sugar creates hyperactivity" and "Tranquilizers STUNT the developing organs of children." I was shocked to think that my doctor didn't know this information.. It propelled me in 1961 to get into the study of health and nutrition myself. No more thinking that doctors knew everything and had all the answers.
I see a problem with the notion that "... healthy children get few or no vaccines and those at higher risk for communicable disease get a greater burden of immunizations depending on the risk parameters for infection." It's my understanding that one of the principles of vaccines is they should never be given to the sick or otherwise health-compromised (humans or animals). This went out the window during COVID, obviously, but now I'm seeing it presented as an alternative to vaccinating everyone/all children.
How is it that the most vulnerable among us, including tiny babies with established health issues, are the best candidates to receive potentially harmful/life-threatening "immunizations"? It needs to be clearly demonstrated, with HONEST science, not the "science" we saw during COVID, that "those at higher risk for communicable disease" will BENEFIT from, not ultimately SUFFER from, vaccination. And the explanation for why we should inject the vulnerable needs to be crystal clear.
I am deeply troubled with those who are injured seemingly being held out as the acceptable scapegoats for keeping the shots, or even exemptions, available. Imagine parents who are struggling to help their child survive all day every day. Imagine making the choice to vaccinate because you are told your fragile child will die without it. Then you hear it doesn't leave the body, has long term health implications, and your child starts declining. We know parents who are suffering from agonizing regret. But the medical community still talks about holding it out for those with underlying conditions as an actual good option for some. I find this unconscionable and horrifying, and I do not believe these are good for ANYONE, ESPECIALLY those who are ALREADY ill, anymore than they are good for the elderly, children, pregnant moms, or ANY vulnerable person!!! The sick are not expendable, even when it is put in terms of offering them exemptions!!!
Incidentally, the prevalence of those with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (especially the most common, hypermobile, systemic form) which goes hand in hand with mast cell activation and dysautonomia among other things is moving from 1/5,000 to 1/250-1/500 in the research. Some experts believe it is as prevalent as 1/100. These patients usually have a boatload of underlying health conditions from systemic damage/micro-tears in connective tissue throughout the entire body (skin, muscles, bones, ligaments, muscles, organs, joints, eyes, etc.) and therefore already have an ongoing inflammatory response. The lining of their blood vessels are already compromised, and they definitely don't need more ongoing inflammatory damage from the spike protein. Mast cells (1,200 different mediators) are degranulating out of control in the connective tissue of many patients with these conditions. There is a high prevalence of autism in this patient population as well. We are seeing MCAS, dysautonomia, neurological complications, peripheral nerve damage, mitochondrial dysfunction, autoimmune conditions like Hashimotos, blood clots, bleeding disorders, CVSTs, aneurysms, strokes, intracranial hypertension and hypotension, csf leaks, gastroparesis, etc., in these patients already. Does there seem to be overlap with what we are seeing in Covid "vaccine injury"?Connecting even the most obvious dots, what would make it EVER a good thing to mandate, withhold exemptions for, or even recommend vaccines for these suffering people, especially knowing these products contain adjuvants, synthetic components, foreign DNA, etc., that their bodies are surely going to struggle to process. I think we need to be very careful we are not crossing a moral/ethical line here of thinking that this might still be "worth a shot" for these incredibly vulnerable people. I happen to know people in this patient population who have been deeply impacted and harmed the last five years! Several doctors have been trying to call attention to this group of EDS/hypermobile/sensitive group of patients who may be more prone to Long Covid, Covid "vaccine" injury, and even shedding, including Dr, Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, and Dr. Jordan Vaughn. They are very much on to something!!!
I have never trusted the vaccine manufacturers or doctors. Never will. Not after this.
Thank you Dr. McCullough for your lucid explanation of the current situation as we reflect on the recent pandemic years. Young parents in particular need this reasoned approach to childhood vaccinations. The media fear-mongering has to be exposed. RFK Jr. is setting a fine example globally for better public health outcomes by simply removing the known and suspected causes of ill health. Kids deserve better protection!