Dr. Malone, thank you for the change of heart you have had starting in 2021. I am a physician who was kicked out of academia for developing ETHICAL VACCINOMICS concepts starting in 2005. We need to be moving most vaccines out of the first year of life to avoid maternal derived antibodies creating immunointerference. Maternal derived antibodies delivered to the fetus during gestation have half-lives of 6 months and are interfering with vaccine efficiency - plus we don’t and never have vaccinated for measles mumps and rubella in the first year which is a classic example right in the cdc schedule of the unethical decision making stacking the rest of the vaccines into the first year of life. We also need to be calculating titer decay rates in EVERY American as most boosters are a complete fraud if done when the individual still has plenty of antibodies from prior infections or vaccination. There’s no excuse anymore for failing to run titer checks before every booster-that’s the crux of Ethical Vaccinomics check for lack of antibodies before vaccination at the individual level - we do things this way in all other branches of medicine - imaging or lab testing to prove the need for an intervention. Some how the lowly pediatricians have corrupted the entire profession of medicine. They are usually not the brightest medical students - the future pathologists, radiologists and surgeons are the brightest as it is much more challenging to go through those longer residencies.
One major point that often gets overlooked in public conversations about infant vaccination is that a newborn’s immune system simply isn’t fully mature at birth. Newborns do have an active immune system, but it’s still developing and functions very differently from the immune response of older children and adults. In addition, infants rely heavily on maternal antibodies—transferred during pregnancy and, for breastfed infants, through breast milk—to help protect them from infections in early life. A huge issues is that most women of child bearing age no longer have immunity to most of these illnesses since they received immunity via a needle instead of naturally so they have no ability to pass along anything to their newborns.
I find Dr Malone's discussion very helpful in setting out the issue of who decides what treatment one agrees to receive. I personally very strongly support informed consent. In the meantime two groups of states have joined forces to, among other things, replace HHS authority with regard to medical decisions for their citizenry. My state has joined the east coast group, making the issue a personal concern.
Having lived in one of the blue states aligned against HHS recommendations, I often wonder how the people living here are so willing to accept the Pharma supported narrative. Is it something in the water we drink? Or could it be that by accepting progressive ideologies, someone is more gullible towards media driven propaganda including medical mandates?
Informed consent on vaccines is impossible. There is very little data on the risks of vaccines for two reasons: no placebo controlled trials with long term follow up and inadequate post-licensing safety monitoring systems. This is by design. One cannot weigh risks vs benefit when knowing risks is impossible and benefits are assumed but not proven.
Informed consent, choice, safer vaccines have been the controlled opposition talking points for decades: "The NVIC, led by Barbara Loe Fisher, is “pro-vaccine and pro-choice.” Most people believe, however, they oppose vaccinations. Not so. Ms. Fisher never admits vaccinations evolved to exclusively serve drug industrialists who advanced eugenics (i.e., racial hygiene), the NAZI party, and todays biotechnologies for population control using blood contaminations from disease injections. Fisher heralds her accomplishments and alliances with congress, regulatory agencies, industry officials, and the leading role the NVIC plays in “consumer activism.” She NEVER apologizes for her role in advancing the primary legislation that has left millions of people sick and financially destitute (the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986) nor her roll in “controlled opposition” furthering the “Big Lie”–that vaccines are “generally good” but some pose problems."
This is an excellent post, thank you. Dr Malone’s framing of the issue of evidence is so simple, and true. Keep beating that drum! The foundational and illogical arguments of the pharma-corrupted and media-addled are being eroded. I hope they collapse in my lifetime.
The Vaccinated Girls – Sick and Betrayed (2015 Documentary) says that the 'Danish health authorities' withheld information. Doesn't sound like they are an example of telling the truth and letting people decide. If they told the truth nobody would 'vaccinate' which would be equivalent to banning 'vaccines'. The only reason to talk choice is to manipulate and is as good as a mandate. It was already known 200 years ago from the experience in Leicester that choice was more effective at maintaining 'vaccination' than mandates but that doesn't mean the mandates don't appear when needed. In Denmark too there was mandatory lock downs before they slipped back into good cop mode.
There is always the danger of mandates or even worse when people believe in viruses. Choice serves to keep the discussion off banning the illegal activities. Mandates are not wanted by the 'vaxxers'. They just pretend so they can maintain the offense and avoid going into defense. It allows them to pose as the opposition to mandates and subvert the actual abolition movement.
Dr. Malone, thank you for the change of heart you have had starting in 2021. I am a physician who was kicked out of academia for developing ETHICAL VACCINOMICS concepts starting in 2005. We need to be moving most vaccines out of the first year of life to avoid maternal derived antibodies creating immunointerference. Maternal derived antibodies delivered to the fetus during gestation have half-lives of 6 months and are interfering with vaccine efficiency - plus we don’t and never have vaccinated for measles mumps and rubella in the first year which is a classic example right in the cdc schedule of the unethical decision making stacking the rest of the vaccines into the first year of life. We also need to be calculating titer decay rates in EVERY American as most boosters are a complete fraud if done when the individual still has plenty of antibodies from prior infections or vaccination. There’s no excuse anymore for failing to run titer checks before every booster-that’s the crux of Ethical Vaccinomics check for lack of antibodies before vaccination at the individual level - we do things this way in all other branches of medicine - imaging or lab testing to prove the need for an intervention. Some how the lowly pediatricians have corrupted the entire profession of medicine. They are usually not the brightest medical students - the future pathologists, radiologists and surgeons are the brightest as it is much more challenging to go through those longer residencies.
Thank you so much for bringing up the point about maternal antibodies. I wrote about this in the conclusion of my post about the last ACIP meeting. https://smithvirologist.substack.com/p/acip-exposed-how-newborn-vaccination
One major point that often gets overlooked in public conversations about infant vaccination is that a newborn’s immune system simply isn’t fully mature at birth. Newborns do have an active immune system, but it’s still developing and functions very differently from the immune response of older children and adults. In addition, infants rely heavily on maternal antibodies—transferred during pregnancy and, for breastfed infants, through breast milk—to help protect them from infections in early life. A huge issues is that most women of child bearing age no longer have immunity to most of these illnesses since they received immunity via a needle instead of naturally so they have no ability to pass along anything to their newborns.
I find Dr Malone's discussion very helpful in setting out the issue of who decides what treatment one agrees to receive. I personally very strongly support informed consent. In the meantime two groups of states have joined forces to, among other things, replace HHS authority with regard to medical decisions for their citizenry. My state has joined the east coast group, making the issue a personal concern.
Having lived in one of the blue states aligned against HHS recommendations, I often wonder how the people living here are so willing to accept the Pharma supported narrative. Is it something in the water we drink? Or could it be that by accepting progressive ideologies, someone is more gullible towards media driven propaganda including medical mandates?
Informed consent on vaccines is impossible. There is very little data on the risks of vaccines for two reasons: no placebo controlled trials with long term follow up and inadequate post-licensing safety monitoring systems. This is by design. One cannot weigh risks vs benefit when knowing risks is impossible and benefits are assumed but not proven.
Informed consent, choice, safer vaccines have been the controlled opposition talking points for decades: "The NVIC, led by Barbara Loe Fisher, is “pro-vaccine and pro-choice.” Most people believe, however, they oppose vaccinations. Not so. Ms. Fisher never admits vaccinations evolved to exclusively serve drug industrialists who advanced eugenics (i.e., racial hygiene), the NAZI party, and todays biotechnologies for population control using blood contaminations from disease injections. Fisher heralds her accomplishments and alliances with congress, regulatory agencies, industry officials, and the leading role the NVIC plays in “consumer activism.” She NEVER apologizes for her role in advancing the primary legislation that has left millions of people sick and financially destitute (the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986) nor her roll in “controlled opposition” furthering the “Big Lie”–that vaccines are “generally good” but some pose problems."
https://exposingvaccinegenocide.org/nvic/
You are correct on this point. Simply telling people that should also aid them in the decision making process.
This is an excellent post, thank you. Dr Malone’s framing of the issue of evidence is so simple, and true. Keep beating that drum! The foundational and illogical arguments of the pharma-corrupted and media-addled are being eroded. I hope they collapse in my lifetime.
The Vaccinated Girls – Sick and Betrayed (2015 Documentary) says that the 'Danish health authorities' withheld information. Doesn't sound like they are an example of telling the truth and letting people decide. If they told the truth nobody would 'vaccinate' which would be equivalent to banning 'vaccines'. The only reason to talk choice is to manipulate and is as good as a mandate. It was already known 200 years ago from the experience in Leicester that choice was more effective at maintaining 'vaccination' than mandates but that doesn't mean the mandates don't appear when needed. In Denmark too there was mandatory lock downs before they slipped back into good cop mode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maFFIJuJ8HY
There is always the danger of mandates or even worse when people believe in viruses. Choice serves to keep the discussion off banning the illegal activities. Mandates are not wanted by the 'vaxxers'. They just pretend so they can maintain the offense and avoid going into defense. It allows them to pose as the opposition to mandates and subvert the actual abolition movement.
https://odysee.com/@Vaccine_Documentaries:1/The-Vaccinated-Girls---Sick-and-Betrayed-(2015):6