If we've learned anything from these past couple of years, my fellow Americans is that personal medical freedom and liberty are in prices.

America Rot Law Pulse brings together the top experts in health care related fields to keep you upbeaten ahead.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen.

This is Dr.

Clayton J.

Baker MD on the America Out Loud Pulse Program on the America Out Loud Radio Network, Liberty and Justice for All.

Today I'm doing an extra session this week, and I'm going to be moving away from my most frequent topic over the past several weeks, which has been geoengineering.

As you all know, there was some hopeful news in the last podcast, as the current administration took aim at NCAR, the National Center for Atmosphere's atmospheric research in Boulder, Colorado.

This is a longstanding atmosphere and weather research facility with a budget of a quarter of a billion dollars per year, virtually all of which is federally funded.

The administration is taking a hard look at this institution in terms of many woke aspects of its practice, which have crept in over the years, as well as its involvement in a consortium of over a hundred and twenty universities who have been getting money to do geoengineering research.

So this was a hopeful development, and we will see where it leads.

But today I'm going to go in a slightly different direction and discuss the topic that essentially got me involved in public projects, such as this podcast.

And that is the COVID-19 debacle disaster that we all faced from 2020 until well until now, although it's certainly less intense than it used to be.

The logical follow-up to that is what's going on with Health and Human Services under Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.

And the changes in the vaccine schedule are the hot topic right now.

For those of you who are not completely up to date, the advisory committee on immunization practices, the ACP committee of the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC, have been meeting.

They have new personnel who are not bound to Pfizer as the previous well, Pfizer, not bound to pharma as the previous members of this group were.

With the new Trump administration, with the addition of Secretary Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.

as the HHS secretary, a thorough overhaul of the ACIP committee has been made.

The individuals are much more independent.

They are not taking money from big pharma, and they are taking a very how shall I say it skeptical look at the existing schedule.

The existing vaccine schedule, particularly for children, has frankly gotten completely out of control late years.

When I was a child many years ago, prior to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, there were either five or six recommended vaccines on the schedule.

If you got them all, you got maybe a dozen to 15 total shots.

Now there are 23 different vaccines on the schedule, and the total number of shots that a child gets during their childhood is in the neighborhood of 72 to 73 injections.

Of course, despite this huge increase, this huge, frankly, assault on the immune systems of young children.

Pediatric health outcomes are worse than they were back in the 1980s or even the 1990s.

It's well known that there has been a tremendous surge in autism and in other neurodevelopmental disorders in that time as well.

The curves for this trail closely behind the increase in the number of shots that are given to children.

More recently, President Trump gave a verbal mandate to HHS to look at the vaccine schedules in other developed countries, which have a much smaller vaccine burden on children than does the United States at present.

And that's where the controversy sits right now.

The most recent ACP meeting, they voted to change the recommendation to stop recommending a hepatitis B vaccine at birth for all children in the United States.

This was supposed to be replaced with medical decision making and a wait of at least a couple of months before considering giving the hepatitis B vaccine.

As a bit of background information, it's important to know that all women, all pregnant women are tested for hepatitis B vaccine, hepatitis B disease, excuse me, while they are pregnant, and if they are positive, then the old recommendation remains intact that the baby at birth get immune globulin and the vaccine.

However, if the mother does not have the disease, then the odds of the baby getting the disease are essentially zero.

However, as with any other treatment, the potential harms of getting the hepatitis B vaccine, particularly in a newborn baby, are not zero, they are real and they are measurable.

Hence the change in the recommendation.

This is consistent with the recommendations made in many other developing, excuse me, developed countries, first world, if you will, countries such as Denmark, such as Japan, and such as many other countries.

Nevertheless, the effort to curb these excesses in the United States schedule has been met with absolutely furious, if not particularly sensible resistance.

This resistance is coming from the usual pharma shills, physicians who have been vaccine zealots for many years, such as Paul Offitt and other talking heads.

Their arguments are incoherent largely, they are nonsensical.

But the hue and cry is tremendous.

So let's take a step back and let's talk about vaccine science in general, because the exact timing in the exact frequency of shots is important, but I think at least as important, possibly, I would even venture, probably more important, is how good is the science on these shots to begin with.

And unfortunately, the answer is the shot science behind most vaccines is absolutely terrible.

I recently wrote an article, series of articles, as it turns out, uh, that are currently being published one by one in Brownstone Institute.

You can go to Brownstone.org and find them there.

The initial article is called the Five Big Lies of Vaccinology.

And then the subsequent articles are going one by one through these falsehoods that have underpinned vaccine science vaccine approval and the application of vaccines.

Into the pediatric schedule and to into other recommended schedules by the CDC over the past several decades.

So I'm going to walk us through these five big lies of vaccinology, and we even have a couple of honorable mentions at the end.

So I started out the article with a quote, a quote by a psychologist who studied Nazi Germany by the name of Walter Langer.

And Langer wrote, and I quote, people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one.

And if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.

On November 19th of this year, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article entitled Efficacy, Immunogenicity and Safety of Modified MRNA influenza vaccine.

And supposedly this article reviewed the results of Pfizer's phase three clinical trials, testing its experimental mRNA-based.

Gene therapy and injections for influenza, which Pfizer presents as an alternative to traditional influenza vaccines.

Now, just two weeks later on December 5th, the Centers for Disease Controls Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the ACIP Committee, which we've been talking about already, voted 8 to 3 to end the recommendation that all American children receive the hepatitis B virus vaccine at birth.

And as I mentioned, this recommendation would bring the CDC's HBV, hepatitis B vaccine.

Recommendations closer to those in numerous other developed nations.

I mentioned Denmark, I mentioned Japan.

And those nations have better overall pediatric health than the United States.

And they certainly don't have any surplus in hepatitis B virus deaths in children.

Now, if you're a casual observer, none of this may seem particularly exciting, but as I mentioned again.

Now, why is that?

Well, the New England Journal study.

Or article, I should say, of Pfizer's self-conducted study of its own product, has been extensively analyzed by independent reviewers, including myself.

It has been identified as an object lesson in scientific fraud.

It has been identified as emblematic of the problems in vaccine research, development, and marketing.

The study that Pfizer conducted and the nature of the presentation in the New England Journal show multiple systematic techniques of deception, deceptive research methods, deceptive presentation of results, including omission and concealment of unfavorable data, and frankly outright misrepresentation of the results.

Now the ACEP panel's decision on hepatitis B virus vaccine really represents a very minor change in this the schedule.

And the difference is not so much that this minor change was made.

It's certainly not that it was made without any evidence.

But it's, in my opinion, simply the fact that any change whatsoever, any potential reduction whatsoever in the schedule has been made.

The schedule has been growing, if not exponentially, at least geometrically over the past several decades.

And that's the way pharma wants it.

And any attempt to reduce that to bring it back to a sensible control has been met with violent opposition.

The claims, the alarmist proclamations by the vaccine industry and its mouthpieces of impending disease and death in American children goes on and on.

There were 1,900 cases of measles in 2025 in the United States in a country of 340 million people.

There was no mention of the fact that we have tens of millions of undocumented illegal aliens, many of whom are not vaccinated.

There was no mention of the fact that Canada, a country adjacent to us with a tenth as many people, had over 5,000 cases.

No, this is Bobby Kennedy's fault, despite the fact that the first cited outbreak in West Texas happened a few days before he was confirmed as HS secretary.

So you can see that these complaints have no bearing in reality.

They're absolutely fear-porn, but this is where we are at.

And I would submit that the reason that these two events have sparked such controversy are that the New England Journal of Medicine article regarding the Pfizer phase three trial on its mRNA influenza shot really exposes the systematic dishonesty of both vaccine development and the clinical trial process as a whole.

Meanwhile, the results of that particular study, once fully uncovered and comprehensively reviewed, go a long way to shatter the viability of the mRNA gene therapy platform as a substitute for conventional vaccines, which is clearly the intent of bringing out an mRNA influenza shot.

Meanwhile, the unhinged response to the ASIP decision, which is a very minor change in schedule, reveals the entire pediatric vaccine schedule is a house of cards, and it cannot withstand any criticism, reform, or revision whatsoever.

So we're going to go to break.

We're going to come back in a minute and we're going to continue on this, and we're going to talk about these five big lies of vaccinology.

We'll be back in a moment after these messages.

This is Dr.

Clayton J.

Baker MD on the America Outloud Pulse Program on the America Out Loud Radio Network, Liberty and Justice for All.

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.

This is Dr.

Clayton J.

Baker MD on the America Out Loud Pulse Program on the America Out Loud Radio Network.

Liberty and Justice for All.

Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?

But all the energy and protein bars are just too sweet and full of sugar, preservatives, and mystery ingredients.

Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary.

Bear bars are a crunchy savory bar made from just six simple natural ingredients.

They're plant-based, organic, packed with protein and nutrients, and are low temp dried for a unique crunch.

Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups and sweeteners.

But bear bars are a delicious combination of veggies, nuts, and seeds.

They're a perfect fast snack for hikes, workouts, and busy moms and dads.

To learn more, just visit bearbar.com forward slash out loud and get the exclusive discount just for America Out Loud listeners.

That's B E A R B A R dot com forward slash out loud.

Are you eating like your health depends on it?

Because it does.

Most of the beef and grocery stores today come from industrial feed loss where animals are pumped with hormones, vaccines, and now even experimental mRNA technology.

You won't see it on the label, but it's there.

Wellness farms, eat like your health depends on it.

100% grass-fed grass-finished beef from regenerative American family farms.

Our cattle roam on wide open pastures, eating only natural grasses, never touched by mRNA shots, never given growth hormones, and never ingested with unnecessary vaccines.

Just clean, nutrient-dense beef the way nature intended.

Every cut is hand-selected, processed by trusted butchers, and shipped directly from the farm to your door.

No middlemen.

Order now at TWC.

In just two minutes per day, you can reclaim your health and vitality and cut your grocery bill in half with one simple convenient product.

Our doctor formulated Green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential nutrients stops hunger in its tracks and supplies your cells with what's missing in the grocery store food.

It's packed with wheatgrass, corella, dandelion, moringa, spirulina, broccoli sprouts, asaiberry, beetroot, probiotics, enzymes, vitamins A, D, K, B12, just to name a few.

Go to Chemicalfree Body.com forward slash out loud today, get nature's super multivitamin Green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order.

Well, did you see Google quietly updated its AI principles removing its pledge not to use AI for weapons or surveillance?

A promise they agreed to in 2018.

Well, the American people have seen Google's track record.

Often the question is Google an untrustworthy player from the AI race.

Now is our time, my fellow Americans.

America of Mao Dot News, liberty, and justice for all.

In the first segment, he discussed in some detail these two recent events in the world of vaccinology, the first being a very problematic study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, conducted by Pfizer, producing an mRNA so-called vaccine, but really gene therapy for influenza immunization, which is quite frankly an object lesson in the deceptions that have been inherent in vaccine studies for decades.

We also looked at the recent decision by the ACP panel, the advisory committee on immunization practices of the CDC, who voted 8 to 3 recently to postpone hepatitis B vaccine immunization in children whose mothers do not have hepatitis B virus and not to give it at birth in most cases.

Again, we mentioned how the response was absolutely disproportionate to the small change in the schedule, this very sensible change in the schedule, and the human cry has not died down yet.

Why is that?

I would submit that the awful truth is that vaccinology is overwhelmingly a facade.

It's constructed on a foundation of lies.

In the wake of these two controversies, I think it's useful to enumerate five great lies that are propping up the vaccinology project.

And I also threw in two honorable mentions.

But I chose these five, and uh I'm gonna work through them for you today.

So what are my five big lies of vaccinology?

Well, the first is big lie number one is equating antibody production with immunity to disease.

Big lie number two is using fake placebos.

Big lie number three is insisting that my immunity is dependent upon your vaccination.

Big lie number four is declaring that multiple simultaneous injections are safe.

Big lie number five is declaring vaccines fundamentally quote unquote safe and effective as a class.

I threw in two honorable mentions.

The first is declaring mRNA gene therapies to be vaccines, which they are not.

They are gene therapies.

Honorable mention number two is allowing criminal corporations to conduct their own clinical studies.

So let's take the remainder of our time today and look through some of these big lies in a bit more detail.

And I think in the process, we're going to see how each lie is interdependent upon the others, how the entire vaccine narrative depends upon a web of falsehoods.

And we'll see why these vaccine zealots, these vaccine fanatics, such as Peter Hotez and Paul Offitt would refuse to attend the ACIP meeting, which they were invited to do.

And in fact, why they refused to debate these points openly.

And I would just remind listeners that the reckoning that appears to be taking place, that hopefully is taking place regarding the vaccine industry is overdue, but it is hardly unique in medicine.

There are multiple examples of previously accepted practices, recommended practices considered to be cutting-edge practices in medicine that have been thoroughly discredited.

There also have been shocking examples in the past of massive almost industry-wide fraud and deception for money that doctors in the medical establishment have been guilty of.

So it should not surprise us in any way that this may be so with vaccinology.

There was a time within living memory when the prefrontal lobotomy was considered cutting-edge medicine, and I intend to use that pun.

Its founder won the Nobel Prize for medicine in the middle of the 20th century.

Now, of course, the prefrontal lobotomy has been thoroughly and correctly rejected as a treatment, but it was widely used, and it was widely accepted to the point where the man who first developed it won the Nobel Prize.

So that shows how wrong, dead wrong the medical consensus has sometimes been in the past.

With regard to physicians taking untenable positions in terms of recommendations, if they were paid to do so, there was a time within living memory when physicians accepted corporate payment from tobacco manufacturers to convince the public that cigarette smoking was safe.

Now, of course, there's really nobody who doesn't admit nowadays that cigarette smoking is injurious to your health, causing lung cancer, among many other problems.

But the days of physicians saying that they recommend camels over other cigarettes and so on was a real phenomenon back again in the mid-20th century and even a bit later than that.

More recently, there was a time very recently when mainstream medicine actively promoted oxycontin and other deadly narcotics as safe and minimally addictive treatments.

They attempted very, very aggressively to extend and expand the usage of these addictive narcotics.

And I remember this specific very uh clearly back around 2003 to 2005, and I resisted it to the very best of my ability.

I was considered to be behind the times.

I was considered to be allowing my patients to suffer pain and so on, but ultimately the whole dope sick phenomenon happened.

Hundreds of thousands of people died, hundreds of thousands of people suffered tremendous harm.

Purdue pharma was sued for billions.

The Sackler family was disgraced, and now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, away from willy-nilly use of narcotics to treat chronic pain.

So that's three examples right there where the industry has paid physicians or compelled physicians to do things that are absolutely wrong, that have harmed patients, people received incredible awards.

There's no more prestigious award than for a doctor than the Nobel Prize in Medicine for treatments that were absolutely deadly harmful.

So it shouldn't surprise any of us at all that this is happening in another area, in this case with vaccinology.

Now I'm going to take a small step back, and I'm not going to say that all vaccines are necessarily useless, that all vaccines are necessarily harmful, but I am going to say that the process of studying approving and promoting vaccine usage to the point of getting them onto the CDC vaccine schedules has been a very dishonest practice in general, and it has several big lies that undergird it, and we're going to talk about those now.

So let's start with the first big lie of vaccinology, which is equating antibody production with immunity to disease.

So what do we mean by that?

Well, essentially what we mean mean is that antibody production is an easily measurable process.

If the patient is given a shot that is designed to induce the immune system to produce antibodies, those can be measured in a lab test.

That is often in vaccine studies presented as proof of immunity to the disease.

Disease.

So for example, with COVID, the COVID shots were designed to stimulate the body to produce antibodies to the spiked protein of the COVID virus.

If that was demonstrated, that was brought out as a surrogate for immunity to disease.

The problem with that is that it's a gross oversimplification of the way that the immune system works.

And it is quite frankly a falsification of the way that the immune system works.

There's several reasons for this.

The first is that the immune system is much more complicated than simply producing antibodies to a particular part of a particular infectious agent and having those antibodies attached to that infectious agent and having that infectious agent cleared from the system.

That, speaking in very simple terms, is part of the process, but it is not the whole process.

And putting it forward as a simple marker of effective immunity is faulty.

It's false.

It's a lie.

But it's been done for several reasons.

Number one, because it's easily demonstrable.

We have tests that'll do it.

And second, because it's a simplistic argument that people can understand.

Oh, well, you you've got immune, you've got uh antibodies to the disease, therefore you must have immunity to the disease.

Unfortunately, that isn't true.

There's several reasons for this.

The first is that the immune system is much more complex than that, as I mentioned.

And even if we break it down into a simple discussion about the immune system, we typically think about what they call humoral immunity or the humeral immune system and the cellular immune system or cellular immunity.

And if you look in a standard textbook, you're going to see that humoral immune humoral immunity refers to antibody production, principally, it's antibody-mediated immunity.

Meaning that when infectious agent gets into your system, the body produces antibodies against it, those antibodies attached the cells clear away the infectious agent.

But there's also the cellular immune system, which involves the body's ability to recognize diseased cells of its own system and remove those from the body.

Again, if you look in textbooks, they'll often say, well, the humoral system, humoral immunity is for infectious agents, and cellular immunity is for detecting and removing cancers at the earliest stage.

Again, this is an oversimplification.

Cellular immunity is extremely important in, for example, viral infections.

Why is that?

Because the way viruses work, as many of you know, is that they get into your body, they get into cells, and they turn those cells into virus factories.

Those cells get hijacked, and instead of producing their own products, they start producing viruses.

So those are diseased cells, and those diseased cells need to be removed from the body in order for the disease to be eradicated, and that is a cellular immune system process.

It is not a humoral immune system process, and how well it works is not measured effectively by simply the presence of a specific antibody.

In fact, the cellular immune system can be messed up by too many vaccines.

It in a sense, putting it very simply, can get confused.

And so this is simply not legitimate to say, well, we produce a certain antibody in four or fivefold greater amounts, therefore this vaccination has given you immunity to this disease.

It simply doesn't work like that.

Another reason is because vaccines don't always target the proper antigen.

They don't always produce exactly the right antibody.

And if you have viruses that are very rapidly mutating, like most respiratory viruses, which are very simple RNA viruses, they mutate like crazy.

By the time you get a vaccine to market, the antibody that produces may be outdated.

So those are just two simple reasons why this marker doesn't work.

And yet this continues to be put forward as proof of immunity, or proof of what they call immunogenicity, immunogenicity.

So geneticity, genesis creation of, and it really isn't immunogenicity, it's simply antibody production.

And if the antibody doesn't provide full or even partial immunity, then that marker is useless.

But it's still put forward, as in the Pfizer study, as demonstable proof that the vaccine works.

So that's the first big lie of vaccinology, and that is that antibody production is effectively the same thing or demonstrates immunity to disease.

It's not true, and it should be eliminated as a significant marker, or should be discarded by regulators and consumers as real evidence of immunity.

It's evidence of antibody production, and that's it.

So we have four more that I'll go through quickly in the last segment.

But as you can see, there's a lot of subterfuge.

It's somewhat complicated in places, but it's certainly a subject that an intelligent lay person can understand.

We'll be back in a few minutes after these messages to complete our discussion of the five big lies of vaccinology.

This is Dr.

Clayton J.

Baker MD on the America Out Loud Pulse Program on the America Outloud Radio Network, Liberty and Justice for All.

I'm Doug Evans, author of the Sprout Book.

I want to share something that's powerful.

You can grow your own food right on your kitchen countertop.

Sprouting is an ancient method that turns ordinary seeds into living vegetables in just three to five days.

No soil, no sunshine, no fertilizer, just seeds, water, for under a dollar a serving, you can grow nutrient-dense packed greens anywhere.

City apartments, dorm rooms, off-the-grid cabins.

In a time when food prices are rising, sprouting gives you control, abundance, and peace of mind.

Join the self-reliance revolution.

Go to the Sprouting Company.com slash out loud and use the code Out Loud for an exclusive offer.

Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years.

Brush, floss, repeat.

We're told to use fluoride, which doesn't really address the acid creating bacteria.

That is where the dentist recommended spray dental defense system shines.

Spry products contain xylitol, a natural sugar, which helps get rid of those nasty, smelly acid-creating bacteria in our mouth.

The best way to care for your teeth and gums is by using spray.

The spray dental defense system has a wide variety of products.

To get your oral care back on track in an easy, effective, and very tasty way.

Switch to spray today.

Ask your dentist about xylitol and the spray products.

Sprite can be found online and at all fine natural product retailers.

Feeling run down, foggy, or constantly drained, your body might be lacking the support it needs at the cellular level.

Recharge from the wellness company is a doctor-formulated supplement designed to restore your energy, focus, and immune function.

It features the first ever combination of methylene blue and urolithin A.

Clinically studied ingredients that support mitochondrial health, boosts cellular repair, and enhance cognitive performance.

With added NAD3, COQ10 and PQQ, recharge is a daily solution for deep lasting energy, not just a temporary boost.

Visit TWC.

Power up your body and mind with recharge.

Hi, I'm Dr.

James Ragman, board certified EO in internal in geriatric medicine.

Do you or someone you know suffer from airborne allergies due to pollen pet dander and other particles, which aggravate and irritate the sensitive nasal passages?

Are you tired of the side effects of common allergy products, such as drowsiness, feeling lethargic, and dry nose?

Well, now there's cofix Rx.

This revolutionary product stops airborne allergy symptoms, all while avoiding the side effects of the usual allergy remedies.

Shake spring cleanse away your allergy issues with COFIX RX.

Click on the COVID XRX banner ad in the American Outloud Shop for 20% off your next order of COVID XRX.

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.

This is Dr.

Clayton J.

Baker MD on the America Out Loud Pulse Program on the America Out Loud Radio Network, Liberty and Justice for All.

We've been discussing what I've called the five big lies of vaccinology so far today.

We went through a list of them.

We got through big lie number one, which was equating antibody production with immunity to disease.

Big lie number two is using fake placebos.

Big lie number three is insisting my immunity is dependent upon your vaccination.

Big lie number four is declaring multiple simultaneous injections to be safe.

Big lie number five is declaring vaccines fundamentally safe and effective as a class.

And we had a couple of honorable mentions.

The first was declaring mRNA gene therapies to be vaccines.

And the second was allowing criminal corporations to conduct their own clinical studies.

So let's go to number two using fake placebos.

As many of you know, a placebo can be defined, generally speaking, in two ways.

A placebo can be a product, commonly we think of a sugar pill, which is given to somebody as a sham treatment, and in some cases it demonstrates a certain amount of effectiveness in the patient as it thought to be a psychologically based benefit.

The second use of the term placebo refers to using a control substance in a clinical trial, which is known to be inert.

So for example, if I was going to use a true placebo in a vaccine trial, I would give the treatment arm, the group of people getting the actual vaccine, the shot, and I would pick a control group to compare them against, which would get perhaps a sterile saline shot.

This placebo would be ideally indistinguishable with regard to from the patient's point of view and from the point of view of the person administering the shot.

They don't know which one the patient's getting, but we keep that information out of the hands of the patient and out of the hands of the person administering the shot.

That's the blinding process in a controlled trial.

We've all heard of double blinded placebo controlled prospective clinical trials.

So the placebo controlled means you have a control group that gets a truly inert product.

We blind it so that the people involved up front don't know which one a patient got, including the patient themselves.

We get full informed consent, so they know that they're okay with this.

And it's prospective, so we follow them over time, both for the desired effects, that is, in this case, immunity from catching a disease, or from side effects, adverse events.

That's the way it's supposed to be done.

In vaccinology, that's almost never the way it's done, because they don't use a true placebo.

They don't give the control group a shot of sterile saline.

Instead, they typically give them another vaccine.

Now, some of you who have a somewhat sophisticated understanding of medicine and medicine development may say, well, that's because if you give them a true vaccine, you're you're somehow depriving them the opportunity to benefit from it.

And in certain aspects of medicine, this may be applicable.

So for example, with a cancer treatment, if you give someone true placebo, they're not being treated for the cancer.

But this doesn't hold up at all in vaccinology because vaccine research is almost always done on healthy volunteer individuals.

So if the person gets the saline injection, which they should, we're not doing them any harm.

We're not depriving them of anything.

We're simply putting them in the control arm.

So that argument's out the window.

Why would an investigator give somebody an old vaccine rather than giving them a true inert placebo, a shot of saline?

The answer is this.

The answer is they don't want the subjects to be compared with someone who got a truly inert product.

Because, number one, they know there's a high likelihood that their product may not be any better than a true placebo, in which case it's useless.

And it's almost certainly going to be more toxic because active ingredients almost always have some toxicity.

Sometimes it's quite low, sometimes it's high.

But the inert saline injection, we know it to be inert, it will not hurt anybody.

So if you're afraid of revealing bad results, then what do you do?

You use as your so-called control, as your false control, you use an existing product.

And this is part of the reason why people have made the argument that vaccine science is really turtles all the way down.

It's not based on any comparison to non-treatment.

It's compared to what we've used in the past.

Well, if what we've used in the past is not particularly effective and it is toxic, then all we have to prove is that it's not any worse than the old thing.

Perhaps it's a little bit better by our measurements, and it is no more toxic than what we've given in the past, or only slightly more toxic.

Once you start to see this, you realize just how fundamentally dishonest this process is.

They didn't compare this new injection against a true placebo, a saline shot.

They compared it against existing flu shots, including whatever happened to be on hand, either in the Philippines or South Africa, where they were doing the trial.

So when they say that the adverse events were acceptable, they're comparing them to whatever the public health officials had on hand in those countries.

That's not comparing them to a placebo at all.

In fact, it's hard to know exactly what they're comparing them to.

So using fake placebos is standard practice in vaccine science.

Sometimes they'll use just the um adjuvants in existing vaccines, but virtually never will they use a true placebo.

And the reason for that is as stated, they don't want you to know what the true adverse event profile is.

They don't want you to know if it's no better than doing nothing.

And if you think, oh, well, it must be at least a little bit better than doing nothing.

Well, consider the case of the Cleveland Clinic.

They did a study recently of their employees.

Cleveland Clinic is a large medical system in Cleveland, Ohio.

They have 50,000 plus employees during the 2024-2025 flu season.

They compared the roughly 80% of their employees who got the flu shot with the 20% who did not.

And lo and behold, the folks who got the flu shot had a 27% greater likelihood of contracting the flu.

Now that's not a clinical trial, but as a prospective trial, and they found that the flu shot backfired.

If you control it to last year's flu shot, which they didn't in this case, um, the results would have potentially been very different.

So you can see from this one study, which was not a clinical trial of the flu shot, but was rather just a prospective study of how it responded in that population.

The flu shot was worth worse than doing nothing.

And this is what frankly they don't want you to see.

Moving on, uh, big line number three is insisting that my immunity is dependent upon your vaccination.

Now, what do I mean by that?

Well, we all live through this during COVID.

People got the shot, and instead of saying, well, I'm vaccinated, I'm set, I'm okay.

You can do what you want.

No, they vilified and tried to remove from society people who refuse to get the shot.

And the rationale behind this was incoherent statements like nobody's safe until we're all vaccinated and that type of nonsense, which is indeed nonsense.

A writer, excuse me, a reader of the article that I put out on this on Brownstone about insisting my immunity is dependent upon your vaccination, sent back this analogy to me, and I thought it was very clever.

He said it's like.

Like there being a rainstorm, we're out in the rain.

I'm wearing a very good waterproof rain jacket, rain gear, and you're standing in a t-shirt, and I'm telling you that you'd better get a raincoat and an umbrella, or I'm going to get wet.

And this is what the messaging was.

It's very dishonest.

If you ask someone why they say that, they tend to move the goalposts, which is a logical fallacy that vaccinology does frequently.

They may claim the need for herd immunity, but the need for herd immunity is for one thing, it's it's a whole other issue, and it's a nonsensical one largely, because to have herd immunity, even in theory, you have to have a sterilizing immunity to the disease in the person who has it.

And vaccines almost never provide sterilizing immunity.

And for an illness like COVID, you don't even come close to getting sterilizing immunity.

So it's absolutely impossible with these respiratory viruses to get herd immunity, even among people who have had the illness, which is superior natural immunity is universally superior to vaccination based immunity.

So that's a false argument, and it doesn't change the fact that if the vaccine works, it doesn't, and I'm protected, it doesn't matter whether you get the shot or not.

I'm still protected.

The second argument that's currently used when they move the goalposts when you say, why do you need to get the shot?

If I got the shot, I'm set, is this sense of civic duty, if you will.

But this isn't civic duty, this is tyranny.

It's basically saying that the government has determined or the authorities have determined that you have to get it, therefore you have to get it.

It doesn't change the fact that if the vaccine works, then if I don't get it, I'm the only person I'm potentially hurting is myself.

So again, the third big lie is insisting that my immunity is dependent upon your vaccination.

It's compelling you to do something that you may not want to do for bogus reasons.

Big lie number four is declaring multiple simultaneous injections to be safe.

And this is a huge part of the vaccine schedules.

It's inherent in the vaccine schedules, particularly in the pediatric vaccine schedules.

When you have to give a child 72 or 73 shots within the first 18 years of their life, if you were to do it in a careful fashion and you were only to give them one shot at a time, that means that the child would have to come in and get a shot 72 to 73 times over 18 years.

Most people aren't going to do that, and even if they did, many of them would realize that this is ridiculous.

This is excessive.

We didn't do this to me when I was a child, so why are we doing it to my children?

So the concept of declaring it to be okay to give someone six, seven, eight vaccines at one visit, became commonplace.

There's even a concept in pediatrics that I'm sure many of you parents out there are aware of called the catch-up visit.

So if a child's going to go to daycare and daycare requires shots A, B, and C, and the child hasn't had them yet, they go in and they get all those shots at once.

If they are going to go to school, same thing may happen.

If they're going to go to college, same thing may happen.

The problem here is there's absolutely no testing, zero none at all for this practice to determine whether it's safe.

And there's reason to think it wouldn't be.

So we're not going to say you're immune to all of them, or immune, excuse me, um, uh, allergic or unable to take all of them.

Disturbingly, there's numerous cases out there.

And in the article that's upcoming, I'm going to go through them where multiple children, typically young children, babies go in, get a catch-up visit, get half a dozen shots, and are dead within a short period of time thereafter.

So declaring multiple simultaneous injections to be safe is a completely ridiculous process.

The last one is declaring vaccines fundamentally safe and effective as a class.

And we saw this with COVID.

You know, it initially in COVID, there were at least four different types of shots that came out with quote-unquote warp speed that our government declared to be universally safe and effective.

Doesn't matter which one is available, just get the shot.

Doesn't matter which one you got last time, you can mix and match.

This type of argumentation is completely based on zero evidence.

It's completely fraudulent.

And in almost anything else, any other aspect of medicine, even we would not buy it.

But for vaccines, we have been sufficiently brainwashed to do so.

So we didn't really have time to get into too much the declaring MRNA gene therapies to be vaccines, which they are not, they are gene therapies.

And if there's another one message I want people to take away, is I would reject the MRNA platform for your use.

There are grave concerns about traditional vaccines, but we do have a better idea with them.

What we're up against with the MRNA products, we really are in a brave new world.

And as we've seen with Pfizer, who has 11 plus billion dollars in criminal fines over the years, allowing them to conduct their own studies as they did in the study for their MRNA flu product, I think we need to stop that as well.

If a company has a long history of fraud, then allowing them to conduct their own clinical studies and submit them for regulation, I think is insanity.

So with that, we're gonna close off on the five big lies of vaccinology.

I hope you found this useful, and I'll see you back very soon.

This is Dr.

Clayton J.

Baker MD on the American Out Loud Pulse program on the America Out Loud Radio Network, Liberty and Justice.