All Episodes
Previous Next
July 2, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
37:24
Reviewing "Turtles All the Way Down - Vaccine Science and Myth" / Dr. Paul Thomas & Zoey O'Toole
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Good morning, CHD.
Welcome to Pediatric Perspectives, where we are looking at children's health challenges from a different perspective, one that includes critical thinking, one that's not afraid to give you the honest truth.
I'm your host, Dr. Paul.
Welcome, Zoe O'Toole.
It is so great to have you back on the show.
I am just so eager to dig deep into turtles.
So you were editor for Turtles All the Way Down, probably the most important book I've read in the last couple years.
And I've just been eager to pick your brain about this.
So, thank you for joining us again.
You are so welcome.
I love talking about this book.
Oh, good.
So, folks who may not know Zoe, if this is your first time meeting her, she was the editor of the blog Thinking Mom's Revolution.
She's a writer and editor of many books, many articles, publishing coordinator for CHD.
And of course, as we dive into Turtles All the Way Down, this is a book you will want to have in your library and read if you can, at least skim through some of this.
It is so important.
What I got from it, I mean, I've been researching this vaccine issue for two decades, And the aha for me was, what?
Not a single vaccine on the childhood schedule has had an actual, real, inert placebo.
Yeah, yeah.
So that's chapter one.
Three on line two, by the way.
And I will give the producer the link to that.
Okay.
You'll have a link to get Chapter One for free online and of course you can order the book as well.
So, if no vaccine has been properly tested for safety, which is a fact, that should just, anybody watching and listening right now should go, what?
Because that just doesn't make any sense.
So, why do you think that is?
Okay, well, There are two ways they get around doing trials with real placebo controls.
The first one is that they compare it to a previous vaccine.
So, say you're testing Prevnar 13 and you want to do a clinical trial.
So, what they do is they would test Prevnar 13 against Prevnar 7, which would be the previous version of the vaccine, and then they would compare The adverse events in one group to the adverse events in another group.
And as you can imagine, if you're comparing Prevnar 13 to Prevnar 7, the adverse events are going to be pretty similar.
So at that point, they'll say, because those are similar, that the new one is safe because the old one was safe.
Now, what they don't tell you is that that old one was never tested against a placebo control either.
That one would have been tested against either Prevnar for me is like the The supreme example, because the original Prevnar was tested against an experimental meningitis vaccine.
Now, most of the meningitis vaccines are pretty high when it comes to numbers of adverse events in the first place.
Then you talk about the fact that it's an experimental vaccine and they have the nerve to call this the control group.
So that one is the one that just makes me furious.
But then there are other ones where they test it not against the placebo, it's the vaccine without the antigen.
And they pretend that that makes sense as a comparator because it's Very close.
So the only difference then is the thing that makes it a vaccine.
But it's not the only thing that makes it a vaccine.
As you and I know, anything in the vaccine's formulation can cause some kind of immune reaction.
So they're not the inactive ingredients that they're pretending that they are.
So that's how they get away with it.
Now, why do they get away with it?
They get away with it because if you look at the actual numbers of adverse events for these clinical trials, you'll see that one in 22 kids are sent to the hospital with a fever and whatever.
This is not something that would happen with a placebo control.
So they don't want you to know that these things are actually having a great impact upon your infant's system.
Yeah, significant.
Significant.
Significant health challenges directly caused by the vaccine.
Exactly.
Yeah, I remember in the, you know, I came into practice as a pediatrician in 1985.
I left medical school, finished my pediatric training in 1988.
And that was right around the time, well, two, three years later, we switched from the old wholesale DPT to the acellular DPT.
And the Acellular, Japan had already been using for about seven years.
We knew it was a lot safer.
You correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember reading in the Turtles book that the trials for the Acellular used the whole cell DPT as their control.
Yes, so of course it comes off as safe.
Yeah, so they're using what we knew was a dangerous vaccine.
I mean, I dreaded giving that vaccine.
Almost every kid got super high fevers, high rates of seizures, and there were deaths.
I thankfully didn't.
Well, I may have had one death.
It was not on my watch, but it was in my clinic as I was in training.
And I was supervising other people.
But yeah, that was a scary, scary vaccine.
So if that's your placebo, that's your control, then the new vaccine looks great.
The vaccine executives, I mean, these people who own these companies on the boards, I mean, who are they obligated to?
Is it the public or individual health?
They are legally obligated to their shareholders, first and foremost.
So wait a minute, I thought vaccine companies were doing good in the world.
Oh yeah, they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, right?
They're so selfless.
You're being sarcastic, I think.
Millions in fines for their fraudulent business practices, but we're suddenly going to think that they're going to behave Like little angels when it comes to vaccines.
Of course not.
Especially now that they're very, very profitable.
Look, the HPV vaccine is an expensive vaccine.
Yeah, the profits are getting ridiculous.
Well, where does the funding come then for their vaccine research?
Well, that's interesting because a lot of it's directly from the pharmaceutical companies, right?
When they're doing their clinical trials, they are doing their own.
There's no government, there's oversight insofar as that they have to fulfill the FDA's requirements, but the FDA is not requiring them to compare their vaccines to a regular placebo like they would for a normal drug.
Vaccines are biologics and they have slightly different requirements and they, the FDA approves these clinical trials every time.
So the FDA knows what's going on here and they're letting them get away with it.
It's business as usual.
That is the standard practice for a vaccine clinical trial.
Yeah.
Ah, you use the word biologics and it triggered a memory of mine.
So, on our last interview, you were talking about what you wished you had known was not to do the hepatitis B for newborns.
I want the listeners to understand that when you sign into the hospital in America, in the United States, to have a baby, there's all this Legalese stuff and it's not even on paper anymore.
It's on the computer and who's got time to sit there and read pages and pages of fine print?
Somewhere in that fine print you have given permission for biologics.
That is code for the hepatitis B vaccine that's going to be given to your newborn usually in the first hour of birth.
Welcome to the world.
Here's 250 micrograms of aluminum, a massive toxic dose for something they're not at any risk for.
Yep.
So, thank you for reminding me of that biologics thing.
Just, parents, if you have a hospital birth, you can never let that baby out of your sight, and you don't want any injections going into them.
I mean, vitamin K, if you have to, if you must, if you want to, that's different, but that's another whole story.
But better make sure it's vitamin K, because there's too many of my patients got a shot they thought was vitamin K, later to learn it was the hep B. Oops!
Sorry, we made a mistake.
Yeah, I've heard that story a lot, too.
Yeah, so how reliable is the science that is published in journals?
I mean, you know, you laugh.
Pediatricians, doctors in general, we're busy.
You know, we get a bunch of journals across our desk every week, if not certainly every month.
A lot of them are throwaway journals funded by the pharmaceutical industry, but there's also what we thought of as reliable journals.
The journal called Pediatrics, the American JAMA, Journal American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine.
These are all those Supposedly super reliable journals.
What's your thought about the science they're publishing these days?
There's a chapter in Turtles where the authors go through five different studies.
They're epidemiological studies that are sponsored by either the CDC or the NIH and they are horrible.
Absolutely terrible studies.
And for the most part, they are published in one of these high-impact journals, like you mentioned, and I would also include the Lancet and the BMJ in particular.
And then there are the other kinds of journals, Nature, that get some of this kind of thing, but usually it's in the medical journal specifically.
So what you'll see is that There are numerous techniques that are used to get the answer that people want and the sponsoring organization wants either the pharmaceutical companies or the CDC or the NIH.
They want you to come out saying that the vaccines are safe and effective and they're the most important medical thing we've ever done and That way we can protect the vaccine program.
And that's actually literally said, stated in some of these studies too.
Like they'll say it's so important that that's why we looked at this.
But what you'll find if you read this chapter is that the way they look at it is really invalid for creating any real scientific conclusion.
Now, These are high-impact journals.
These are important, prestigious journals.
How are they letting them get away with this?
Well, people say peer review.
Peer review should prevent that.
But as the book discusses, and I've seen further discussed in other places, peer review does not function as people think it does.
It's not a scientific process.
It often boils down to the editor gets this paper, says, oh, it's about such and such.
I know a couple of people who do this work.
And they send the paper off to those people.
And if one person says publish and the other person says don't publish, they send it off to a third person.
Who works as a tiebreaker.
Now, this means that it's fairly random which things get published and which things don't.
And this same person, I think was Smith, said that he knew an editor who said that he wanted to run an issue that was only papers that had failed peer review to see if people would guess.
And then, no, someone had actually suggested it to him.
And then he said to those people, how do you know I haven't done that?
So that's how almost random the peer review process works.
And then Marsha Angel, who was the editor at the New England Journal of Medicine for a whole bunch of years, She wrote a book about the truth about pharmaceutical companies.
And she talks about how at this point in time, they are really running the journals.
They run their own, they basically can get published whatever they want published.
And one of the reasons why they can do that is because these journals get large fees for what they call reprints.
So those fees will be paid by pharmaceutical companies for something that they really want to have printed.
So say a pharmaceutical company wants a really good review of Gardasil to be published in their journal, in this journal.
They will then pay for 10,000 copies of this This article to hand out to pediatricians all over the world or all over the country and that will be a huge source of income for the journal so that now the journal has a conflict of interest.
They want to keep their pharmaceutical customers very happy and people don't know that this is going on.
Wow.
So I just had an aha there.
So I was a pediatrician in the trenches for 35 years, and pharmaceutical reps would come to the office and buy us lunch and share information.
And I thought, well, it's a good way to get informed, see what's out there.
Initially, I wasn't even aware that I was being hoodwinked.
Even after I realized what they were doing, I continued to do it.
I'm guilty of that because my staff liked the free lunch, and I was actually curious.
I wanted to grill these people, you know, on, well, wait a minute.
How about this, this, this, and that?
Like, Gardasil is one I remember.
The initial package insert showed so many deaths.
In the trial, I'm going, come on, why would anybody put this in a kid's body, right?
It was just so obvious, and they just sort of sidestepped it.
But yes, they would bring those Reprints that are, you know, nice glossy reprints.
So the ones obviously they had to pay for.
Yeah, that's fascinating.
Yeah, it's very, very problematic.
I don't anymore when I see articles in journals, I almost assume that it's been manipulated.
It's sad, but that's the truth of the matter.
The editors will tell you that at least half of it is just not true.
You know, it's And I know from personal experience, I tried to publish an article showing the data from my practice back in 2015.
Couldn't get a journal to look at it because they will send it.
It's about vaccines and showing vaccines in a negative light.
And they will send that off to people they know will reject it.
And so it goes nowhere.
It just never goes nowhere.
Wow.
I remember reading in the Vaccine Friendly Plan that data and thinking, This is the kind of thing that should be in a journal, right?
Oh my gosh, I had so many things that should be in a journal.
Yeah, I just didn't know how to do it.
I was just a busy clinician.
Well, I'm glad you continued on and did more later, even though that got retracted.
Yeah, yeah.
So we hear that vaccines are safe and effective.
What did Turtles have to say about that?
What do you have to say about that?
What Turtle says, and what I had already learned from my own research, and I loved working on turtles because I knew all that stuff to a large extent, and there was a lot of back and forth between me and the authors.
What it says is that, so we all know that there's been a lot of vaccine controversy in recent years, and the main issue is safety.
We can talk about safety and efficacy, but if the vaccines are not safe, it doesn't really matter how effective they are because you're giving them to healthy children, right?
You're giving them to healthy children, so there should be a very, very high bar for safety.
And the science on safety should be unequivocal, saying that yes, they are truly safe for all, you know, all children who will get them, or we should be able to carve out the children who they're not going to be safe for.
Well, that is absolutely not the case.
If you read Turtles, you will see that the safety science is lacking in every single It's lacking from the pre-licensure studies.
It's lacking when it comes to adverse event reporting.
It is lacking when it comes to what adverse events are truly connected to the vaccine, and how does the mechanism happen, and what can you do to prevent, treat, or just make it less likely to happen.
And none of that science has been done So that tells you that whether or not they are safe, the science hasn't been done to indicate that they are safe.
Now, they've been dealing with parents worrying about the safety for at least 15 years and Really for much longer than that, but for the last 15 years, these parents have been very vocal and they've been able to get TV time and they've been able to get lots of articles written all over so they know parents have been concerned about safety for 15 years.
You would think if they could demonstrate that vaccines truly are safe, they would have done so in the most effective and Convincing way possible.
Now the most effective and convincing way possible would be to do what you did and compare numerous health outcomes in children who have been fully vaccinated according to the CDC schedule and children who have never been vaccinated at all.
The CDC has never done that.
Which is shocking.
So as that book and your research has shown, vaccine trials are a sham.
They're a joke.
So they only look at a few little parameters, oftentimes parameters that don't even matter.
They only look for a very short period of time, sometimes only days.
And they don't look at all health outcomes and they don't have an actual placebo.
So basically, we know nothing from the vaccine trials.
We just don't know.
So it's on faith that you would inject such a product into your baby.
And I've seen the meme where it says something like, huh, I'm supposed to read the labels for the ingredients I feed my baby, but I'm going to inject all these weird sounding toxic substances into my baby without concern.
It's insanity.
It is.
So we have VAERS, and we know it's not working very well, and we've covered that a bit.
But there was a Harvard Pilgrim study, and I know you've covered this.
Yeah.
Talk a little bit about that, because I think it was probably one of the most important eye-opening things that I've read when it comes to adverse events.
So, the CDC knows that VAERS is a terrible system.
It is passive, meaning that they don't solicit reports, and it's also not required.
As you've said in our previous discussion, the pediatricians, they don't know how to recognize a vaccine reaction.
They don't want to spend the time it takes to report the reaction.
So, at some point, someone had the bright idea To automate reporting and it was a great idea.
This group headed by Ross Lazarus at Harvard set up.
A system, piggybacking off a system that was already in place, a network that was already set up.
They set up a system to monitor vaccine appointments and then monitor the appointments that happened after the vaccines.
And what they found was that there were a lot of appointments that should have been flagged as potential vaccine reactions.
They systematically did this.
They figured out what things to look for.
And then what they would do is they would email the doctor and say, we think this might be a vaccine reaction.
Do you want to report it to VAERS?
And then the report would automatically happen.
Well, what they found was that they flagged many, many, many, many more situations than a pediatrician would have picked up in the first place.
And they found that even though pediatricians often said, no, this isn't a vaccine reaction, that they were still reporting something like 30 times more than they had been beforehand.
And what they also discovered was that there was a very high number of these reactions.
And they actually calculated that it was a approximately one in 10 people who are vaccinated in that timeframe who had experienced a reportable event. - Yes.
And that's hardly the one in a million that you see all the time, right?
One in ten.
As opposed to one in a million.
So they're not necessarily talking about devastating permanent neurological injury, but they are talking about You know, fevers and going to the hospital and disrupted digestion afterwards and all kinds of things like that.
That are the things that you would take a child in to a doctor for in the weeks following a vaccine visit.
They found this out, and they put it in a report, and then they were supposed to take this pilot study that worked so well, and they were supposed to expand it to more and more networks so that there would be a lot better adverse event reporting.
And we'd have real data then to work from in the vaccine adverse event reporting system, unlike the way the system is now.
So, what happened when Ross Lazarus submitted this report and asked, when are we going to go on to Phase 2?
The CDC never returned his calls.
Yeah.
He ceased to exist.
Yep.
You know, that was a tragedy.
So many tragedies we've had around this topic.
We touched on briefly the Vaxxed on Vaxxed studies.
Are you familiar of any studies that are out there, Vaxxed on Vaxxed, that can kind of at least shed a little bit of light on the scope of problems?
Well, you know, there are the two Mawson studies, and I don't like to talk about them too much because they're surveys, and surveys are always a little problematic.
But, you know, there are surveys on the other side, so they're worth talking about.
And they definitely do show that they were surveys, particularly of the homeschooled population.
And they did show that the vaccinated kids were Getting a lot more chronic conditions like asthma, allergies, neurodevelopmental issues that you and I know are immune mediated and are connected to vaccines.
So I don't love to talk about those, but really, Paul, your study was just wonderful.
I wasn't asking for accolades at all, but we need more studies.
I love it.
You are like my hero for gathering this data, making sure it was done as well as it was.
And I swear, I owe it to Jack Linesweiler who did the heavy lifting on the analysis.
I was running a busy clinic.
I was a clinician.
I'm retired now.
But I was seeing in my practice, the unvaxxed were clearly healthier and I had very... You had the numbers!
I had the numbers.
I had adequate numbers.
I mean, thousands.
I had, you know, not quite a thousand unvaxxed, but I had several thousand variably vaccinated.
And in that particular study, we didn't have the CDC vaccinated kids because we focused on just those patients born into my practice.
Because I wanted it to just be this, they're all the same.
They show up, they're new parents with a new baby, and they all got treated the same way.
And that's the way that kind of study should be done!
Yeah.
So, you know, it was about as good as it could get in a clinical setting.
It's unfortunate that I know the major health systems have this data.
If you have a health system like a Kaiser or a big, big group, you could go in and pull out the unvaxxed and then match them to the same age, same demographics, and you could look at all health outcomes and you'd have your answer.
There's no question that the Vaccine Safety Data Link, which links up eight or nine of these big health practices, has that data and they have enough unvaccinated kids that they can do that comparison that you did.
They're just not doing it.
They're just not, or they've done it and they can't publish it because it'll be the end of the vaccine program.
Okay, so to wrap it up, because unfortunately, wow, we go through our time so fast together.
Final words to our listeners about the science of vaccines, and that is, I guess, Who do you trust?
I mean, you know, our parents are listening to their relatives who are saying, well, you're going to vaccinate, aren't you?
You know, all that pressure from your family and friends.
And as you start to wake up to the fact that there's a problem with our vaccine program and with the vaccines themselves, Who do you listen to?
Who do you trust?
And it's harder to find the people to trust.
So I say, read Turtles.
You'll know that the people who are not getting paid to tell you this are the parents.
Listen to the parents.
Listen to what they're saying happened to their children.
And once you start listening to that, you'll see that There's a lot more out there than the mainstream is going to let you hear.
Yeah, absolutely.
I like that.
Listen to the parents and also trust your own intuition and take back your own power.
You know, nobody should have the power to do a medical procedure on you or your child without your full knowledge, understanding, and consent.
So, take back your power, fire any doctor that's not listening to you and working with you, and find those who are really open to a true dialogue, honoring informed consent, and you won't regret it.
At TMR, we always used to say, listen to your mommy gut.
Yep.
There you go, folks.
Listen to your mommy gut, and thank you, Zoe.
You have a great mommy gut and a phenomenal brain that helps pull all this information together.
Thanks again for being on the show.
You can check out my other show, With the Wind, at doctorsandscience.com, and you can also take a coaching session with myself, if you wish, at kidsfirstforever.com.
Those links are in the show notes.
Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to seeing you next week.
Hello Defenders of Truth, Freedom, and Children's Health.
This is Stephanie Lucrezia with your Inside CHD segment.
So I am gonna get started straight away with some important updates on legal news,
In one of the most important First Amendment cases of the internet age, the Supreme Court decided that the plaintiffs in the Murphy v. Missouri censorship case did not have standing to sue the Biden administration for pressuring social media companies to censor certain content.
We are still moving on with the Kennedy v. Biden, which is a separate lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana, where we believe there is no issue regarding lack of standing for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Children's Health Defense, who have been directly and traceably censored and continue to be heavily censored.
So stay tuned for more updates as we proceed with this very important case.
I want to start with some EMR news, and I want to bring attention once again to school districts being funded to put cell towers on school property.
This time we're going to Detroit, where this school district got $6.8 million from cell tower companies.
The school districts have 29 contracts with telecom companies And we know how scary this is to have these cell towers on school property, the radiation for the students and the staff.
We're always putting out ways that you can take meaningful action to stop the cell tower proliferation on school properties in and around your neck of the woods.
So go to our Action Alert Portal now and please take action by telling your legislators to ban cell installations in and around school grounds.
We need to make sure that this stops now.
Moving on to smart meter choice, we know that this is another huge issue in this space.
The state of New Mexico ignored hundreds of public comments alleging smart meters harm health, which we know to be true from so many of the stories, with people suffering greatly after having smart meters installed on their homes.
We need to make sure that smart meter choice is preserved and we need to demand that there be more transparency around the health effects of having these smart meters attached to our homes.
So make sure you go to our Action Alert portal where you can take action and tell your state legislators to either support if there is legislation in your state or to introduce legislation that supports utility meter choice.
We need everyone to take action on these important issues because we know With so many of the things that CHD does, we have choice on what enters our body, whether it's a vaccine, a pharmaceutical prescription, or otherwise.
The scary thing about 5G and electromagnetic radiation is that these towers can just suddenly pop up on school grounds.
So make sure you check out the Action Alert Portal, and for more information and updates on EMR specifically, be sure to tune in to our weekly EMR updates with Wes Walker.
You can find that on CHD TV.
CHGTV is streaming an event that you will not want to miss.
It just broadcast yesterday, so you can catch the playback.
We can't forget hospital protocols, past and present.
You can hear from victims, advocates, lawyers, nurses, and doctors who witnessed firsthand what was happening behind locked doors at the hospitals.
These lessons from what happens in COVID are so important because we know That we learn from the past that we can prevent the same things from happening again in the future.
So check those out and share them widely.
We also blogged the ACIP meeting earlier this week.
Definitely something that you want to check out.
We called it Vaxapalooza because the list of vaccines that they were discussing is just completely insane.
There was lots of comments made.
Dorit Reese actually mentioned the hearing from Murphy vs. Missouri and talked about how happy she was that the CDC can now Communicate with people on social media without any interference, which is just a super scary comment.
I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that is the essence of it.
So you definitely want to check it out.
We live blogged it, as always, so you can see the live blog of the meeting.
And as we always do, we had a Twitter storm on X where we highlighted some of the ridiculous comments, we tweeted at the members, so definitely go on to our X at Children's HD.
We would love you to be a part of that.
One of the most important things that we do at CHD is we give voice to the people, and I want to highlight one of those stories right now.
Pfizer COVID vaccine killed our 18-year-old daughter.
Trista Martin was a healthy, beautiful, and thriving 18-year-old before feeling the society pressure to take a vaccine that, quote, destroyed her body.
Her parents explain what it was like to see their daughter die suddenly and why they will never stop fighting for justice for Trista.
And sadly, this is a story that we've heard over and over again on the bus and on People's Testament, on People's Study.
So we know that these injuries are so very real.
If you are looking to tell your story, please go on to the link in the show notes and you can contact the People Study to share your story here on CHDTV.
We are putting together a documentary to highlight everything and that's going to be Vax 3.
We've mentioned it before.
It is coming in September.
We are so excited to get this film out there.
We're going to be counting on all of you to help us to ensure that this film is seen in cities all around the world because we know already that the censorship is real and that the pharmaceutical industrial complex does not want these stories to get out there.
So please stay tuned for more details and make sure that you find and follow us on Instagram.
As those films start to get released in different theaters, I am going to be using this Inside CHD segment platform to call on all of our warriors and advocates to ensure that we have screenings in every city around this country.
And we know Protocol 7 has experienced so much censorship just like our film will.
Please make sure to check out the protocol7.movie website where you can find the showings.
There is local movie screenings on July 8th in Warrington, Pennsylvania, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, Burlington, New Jersey.
The People's Plaza in Newark, Delaware.
Washington Township in Sewell, New Jersey.
Commerce Center in North Brunswick, New Jersey.
So if you're in and around this local area, definitely make sure to check it out, share it, and attend the screening.
It is a film that you definitely must see.
And also mark your calendars.
On July 9th, there'll be more details on the location, but we're gonna be in the Philly area.
The Protocol 7 team will be there standing outside of the courtroom.
In the morning, somewhere between 8.30 and 9 a.m.
so that we can show support as the court hears the appeal on the Merck vaccine fraud that is highlighted in this film.
So if you're in the Philly area and you can attend, definitely come out, show your support.
This is such an important case and we know that public pressure definitely influences the court.
▲
Export Selection