COVID-19: Key Insight This Week - Informed Choice Washington

Key Insight This Week

This week VAERS is reporting 6,246 deaths and 337,226 injuries in connection with the experimental COVID vaccines (biologics). A good question that I’ve seen recently regarding vaccine safety is, ‘Could the rollout out for the experimental COVID vaccine have been better conducted?’

In order to answer this question, we have to objectively look at the necessity of the COVID vaccine first.

It is important to understand that under laws surrounding Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), a vaccine still in clinical trial can only be made available to the public if: (1) there is an emergent need and (2) there are no other viable treatment alternatives.

Do viable treatment alternatives exist is the key question?

While the FDA and most state health departments continue to maintain the unethical position that treatments either do not exist or are unsafe, 691 published studies (and most medical professionals who have successfully treated patients with confirmed cases of COVID) maintain that affordable, safe and effective treatments do exist.

It is a point my colleagues and I make in our magnum opus peer-reviewed manuscript, ‘COVID-19: Restoring Public Trust During A Public Health Crisis.’ https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/covid-19-restoring-public-trust-during-global-health-crisis

In addition to Vitamins D, C, A & E, in addition to Zinc and Quercetin, in addition to Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and Budesonide, research published by the University of California San Diego in conjunction with the Salk Institute confirm that L-Arginine, Lecithin, and N-acetyl Cysteine (NAC) were all very effective at countering the injurious pro-inflammatory responses created by the spike proteins associated with both the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the mRNA experimental COVID biologics.

This study proves that the spike protein alone is enough to induce both mitochondrial and cardiovascular injury to the body, which immediately calls into question the safety of the EUA approved experimental COVID biologics.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902

If viable treatments exist, as supported by an overwhelming amount of published scientific literature and clinical reports from doctors around the world, then perhaps we would be best served by pulling the EUA approved biologics from the marketplace.

If any other product had this poor of a safety record in only 6 months, wouldn’t it get pulled from the marketplace?

We could then promote these evidence-based treatments and allow the clinical trials for the EUA approved biologics to reach their full conclusion before considering their re-release.

So, let’s pretend that tens of millions of people in the U.S. were unable to recover from this infection without the need of medical intervention.

And let’s pretend that there is zero peer-reviewed, scientific evidence demonstrating that safe and effective treatments exist.

And let’s pretend that what our public health and elected officials have been saying for 17 months is factually accurate. Let’s pretend that treatments do not exist and that the experimental COVID biologics are the only potential solution before us. What should a rollout look like?

Full informed consent for all applicants including all short-term known risks and long-term anticipated risks including death and permanent disability. It would also be important to share the results of animal studies and ingredients in the experimental COVID biologics as well.

Serologic prescreening of T-Cells and IgG Antibodies for all biologic applicants to ensure that they are not already immune to SARS-CoV-2. The clinical trials did not include anyone in this population of recovered people. Therefore, anyone who we have no safety data on, like expecting mothers and cancer patients, is immediately ineligible from accessing the experimental COVID biologics.
Serologic prescreening of Vitamin D levels. We know from a study with almost 192,000 enrolled participants, that people with Vitamin D levels at or above 55 ng/ml are not only less likely to get infected, but also recover much faster and often without need of hospitalization when they do. Making sure Vitamin D levels are at or above 55 ng/ml before administering the experimental products would go a long way towards reducing the number and intensity of post-inoculation adverse events.
Treat the inoculation as an artificial infection by supplying each qualified recipient with Vitamin D, C, A, and E along with Zinc, Quercetin, L-Arginine, Lecithin, and NAC to ensure that all is being done to prevent cardiovascular and neurologic adverse events.
Monitor all qualified recipients daily for 28 days during which time IgG Antibody and T-Cells are tested periodically to ensure the inoculation is working as hoped and helping provide the antigen source for natural adaptive immunity to take hold.
Monitor all qualified recipients weekly beyond the first 28 days for any signs of long-term injury or dehabilitation for 24 to 36 months.

The important point is to be sure to treat experimental products still in clinical trial as experimental products by collecting as much data as possible and continually assessing for safety first and efficacy next.

This would be a much more compassionate way, in my humble opinion, to ensure the safety of these experimental products rather than saying the experimental products are safe and hoping that belief holds true for everyone who elects to be inoculated with an experimental product.