Should We "Trade" Human Life with Immunization Programs?
Americans Asked to Risk Their Lives with the Needle to "Save Millions'
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Recently on stage at Church 412 in Temecula, CA, I made a statement no government official figure has uttered since the onset of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign: “No healthy person should give up their life with vaccination for the theoretical protection of the population.” Heads bobbed up and down in the audience. USA Facts recently disclosed that only 70% of the US population at one time was fully vaccinated (2 mRNA shots, 1 adenoviral DNA shot) against SARS-CoV-2. So theoretical protection at best was six months for 70%. Was it worth even a single American life lost? Who decides?
This is a central theme in our new book: Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality.
The word vaccine refers to various technologies for intervening in the complex biology of the body to induce immunity to various pathogens. We evaluate the most celebrated vaccines on a case-by-case basis; we do not dismiss the entire concept. Preventing any suffering, disability, and death is a worthy endeavor, and we give due consideration to vaccine protection from terrible conditions such as paralytic polio and congenital rubella syndrome. However, the value of vaccines is clearly diminished if they have side effects that cause disability and death. Therein lies the critical importance of ascertaining and weighing the benefits and the risks of vaccines, especially when they are mandated for school and job attendance.
From the very beginning of vaccinology, the major players involved were quickly caught up in bold claims, hubris, wealth, and tremendous power. When it comes to public health, this is a bad brew. The medical orthodoxy and public became accustomed to accepting vaccines based on faith, not on formal scientific hypothesis testing, analysis, and statistical inference. No wonder the COVID-19 vaccine campaign became a global atrocity. Please get your copy of our book now. It will become essential to your collection on this topic with timelines, and colorful figures you will not forget.
Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
Risks are part of life, the management of growing older and wiser.
There are many varieties of "RISK".
There are calculated risk factoids in general treated medical health and daily existence.
The Covid Jab Theater was already labeled by law as "UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE".
Your "Risk" factors were stripped from you and replaced by fear porn never before seen.
This was an intelligence test the magnitude of which challenged your very mind and body.
Personal Choice became illegal and outlawed. .GOV showed it's ugly intentions against us.
We must never forget that they declared war on a human population. Not the Virus makers.
"The word vaccine refers to various technologies for intervening in the complex biology of the body to induce immunity to various pathogens."
That technical terms have a single meaning - monosemous - is an absolutely fundamental necessity of science. Unique causes cannot be specified, nor can unique observables be predicted, if terms are ambiguous in meaning.
A vaccine has always been a direct immunogen. A material that in and of itself induces an immune response against a disease organism. An antigen.
An mRNA drug is not a direct immunogen. It is not in and of itself an antigen.
Combining immunogenic agents (vaccines) and mRNA as "various technologies for intervening in the complex biology of the body to induce immunity to various pathogens" ambiguates a distinction that should be absolutely clear.
'Not to worry, Ms. Smith," says the physician, mRNA-filled syringe in hand. 'We're just giving you and your children a technology for intervening in the complex biology of the body to induce immunity to circulating pathogens. They've been in regular use for over 100 years. Fot adults and well-baby care.'
Ambiguating meaning allows passing over critical information in silence. It is to mislead.
There are already many smarmy self-interested pseudo-authorities ready, eager, and able to promote their dangerous ew technologies under a comforting umbrella of fuzzing its identity under classical terms.
It's tempting to give in, perhaps. It's easy to give in, certainly. Doing so avoids conflict.
But hold the line of distinction between a vaccine and an mRNA product. Science demands it. Honesty demands it. Informed consent demands it. Safety demands it.
mRNA products are not vaccines. They're not merely, "technologies for intervening in the complex biology of the body to induce immunity to various pathogens."
They're technologies that intervene in the complex biology of the body, forcing it to make and express foreign proteins in whatever tissue they invade.
They are dangerous inflammogens.
That fact should never be hidden under fuzzy self-serving feel-good re-definitions.