If, like many doctors around the country, you have concerns and unanswered questions on the current vaccine roll out for 5-11-year-old children, then join five distinguished Australian doctors as they address the data, concerns and questions of the vaccine rollouts for 5-11 year olds.
Featuring Professor Ian Brighthope, Dr Paul Oosterhuis, Dr Catherine Fyans, Dr Robyn Cosford and Dr Robert Brennan. Hosted by Marcus Pearce from Doctors with Questions and coordinated by Health Alliance Australia in conjunction with Parents with Questions.
Recorded Tuesday, 18 January 2022.
TRANSCRIPT
Marcus Pearce:
Good evening everyone, and welcome to tonight’s Doctors With Questions session. Marcus Pearce, here with you, and I’ll be facilitating this evening. No doubt, many of you have had a big day at work. Just sit down, rest up, pour yourself a cup of tea or a glass of wine, and enjoy what we have in store for you tonight. It is to have so many doctors joining us on the line tonight, and let’s be honest, there are a lot of questions to work through. We are going to do everything we can to make tonight crisp and dynamic, and ideally answer your questions to an issue and issues that for all of us was completely unprecedented just a couple of years ago. What extraordinary times we are in right now and at the same time, what an opportunity we have to show some brave and courageous leadership.
Marcus Pearce:
Tonight will be the first time many of you will have come across myself. I’m a journalist by profession. Having worked in the sports media for many years before meeting my wife, Sarah, who is a health professional. In about 2006, I transitioned out of sports media and moved into what I call, health, wellness and personal growth media. I run a podcast network called The Wellness Couch and have a keen interest in longevity, aging well and life design. I’m up here in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales, and my wife and I have four beautiful children, so whilst facilitating tonight’s Doctors With Questions, I am most certainly a parent with questions. Massive thank you to the Health Alliance for coordinating tonight, and the COVID Medical Network. Really encourage you all to head on over to healthallianceaustralia.org and to covidmedicalnetwork.com if you get to see what both organizations are up to. But, a sincere thanks to everyone involved who’s been putting all of the ground work into getting tonight up and running.
Marcus Pearce:
Important reminder, this is a confidential webinar. Please, I know of many of you here for obvious reasons have actually popped in, you don’t need to pop in your proper practicing name. And also, please recognize that you will be able to send this webinar to colleagues once tonight’s webinar has been emailed to you. We are recording tonight, but again, if you have any privacy concerns please adjust your name accordingly in the Zoom. Now, please send through your questions. The speakers, if we have time tonight, we will answer as many of your questions as we can. There are a number of questions already that we’re ready to go with, and so we’ll get stuck into them in just a moment. But first, an acknowledgement of country. We acknowledge the traditional owners of the country on which we are all meeting tonight, and we recognize their continuing connection to land, waters and culture. We pay our respects to their elders, past, present and emerging.
Marcus Pearce:
Now, tonight is the first of a series of webinars addressing the data, the concerns and the questions around the current vaccine rollout for five to 11 year old children. Tonight aims to offer full informed consent to your patients as they navigate this contentious issue. A discussion around legal repercussions should a recall occur on these medications in the future, or once the emergency use authorization expires is needed. And there’ll be a number of different conversations or streams to this conversation that we have tonight. This is not a doctor shaming night. This is not a night full of anti-vax material. We’re going to talk about that issue if we have the time later on tonight. I think it’s really important that we recognize that every health practitioner at the moment is doing the best they can within their own view of the world.
Marcus Pearce:
We have an incredibly distinguished panel of professionals joining us tonight. I’d like to first welcome, Professor Ian Brighthope. Professor Ian has a lifelong interest in challenging the way medicine and healthcare is practiced as founding president of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, many of us would know them as ACNEM. He pioneered the first postgraduate medical course in nutrition and nutritional medicine and its related fellowship in Australia. Professor Brighthope, welcome along tonight.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Thank you very much, and good evening everybody.
Marcus Pearce:
We look forward to your involvement tonight. Over to Dr. Paul Oosterhuis. Dr. Paul is an Australian anaesthetist with over 30 years experience, including in critical care and resuscitation. He’s been brought before the Medical Board of New South Wales for posting information on social media regarding lockdowns and COVID-19 related to early treatment and prophylaxis, PCR tests, and risk-benefit calculations. You bad, bad, man. Dr Paul Oosterhuis, welcome this evening. We look forward to having your wise words tonight.
Marcus Pearce:
Dr. Catherine Fyans, a former holistic GP. Dr. Catherine is particularly concerned about the current level of censorship on healthcare practitioners. She recently retired from conventional medicine to pursue mind, body coaching, trauma counseling, and writing. She’s the author of The Wounding of Health Care: From Fragmentation to Integration. Catherine, welcome along this evening.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Thanks Marcus. It’s great to be here. Good evening everyone.
Marcus Pearce:
So great to have you join us. Robert Brennan taught anatomy and biomedical sciences for a decade before medical school and a psychiatry career. After challenging the government’s response to the pandemic, including stating the COVID vaccine should not be mandated, he lost the registration to practice medicine. Brennan has since gained a reputation for speaking out on issues that other doctors are less prepared to voice. Robert, you’re a courageous man. Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
Dr Robert Brennan:
Thank you very much too, I’m honored.
Marcus Pearce:
And finally to Professor Robyn Cosford. Professor Robyn is an integrative medical practitioner and world renowned speaker on autism and colonic bacterial patterns. She’s the recipient of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Medal for community medicine. She’s also the founder and director of Northern Beaches Care Centre, a non-profit multidisciplinary center. Thank you so much for joining us Robyn. (Silence)
Dr Robyn Cosford:
… To speak out, the truth needed to be told, and instead was offered a professorship in nutritional and environmental medicine. So we do need to be uniting. We need to be standing. The truth must be told. And as I said, it’s a great honor, very freeing to finally be able to be doing that, to be speaking without fear of losing anything, because I surrendered it now, so it can’t be taken from me.
Marcus Pearce:
Oh, well, we look forward to everything you’ve got to share with us tonight. And like you said, that freedom must be liberating, and we can’t wait to glean your wisdom tonight. Now, there is an apology last minute from Dr. Gary Feki, who has had to pull out last minute due to personal reasons, so Dr. Gary hope everything is okay. Alrighty, I’ve got a list of questions here. I’m ready to go. Let’s get underway. We want tonight to be incredibly informative, and we really want you to feel a level of confidence and conviction during these challenging times. So we are not going to tread lightly. We’re going to go straight to the most controversial question at the moment, and I’m going to hit it straight to Professor Ian Brighthope. Professor Brighthope, should our children aged five to 11 be vaccinated?
Prof Ian Brighthope:
In my opinion, from the literature that I’ve been reading and looking at, we should not be vaccinating our children between the ages of five and 11 the years. There is no good reason for the vaccination of these children. And in fact, these children if they do get COVID, they recover very quickly. And when we look at the survival rate of the children in that category it’s 99.998%, so very little risk by not vaccinating these children, and there’s a far greater risk once we have vaccinated.
Marcus Pearce:
Do you want to expand on your last statement, it is a far greater risk once we have vaccinated children?
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Well, the greatest risk is the risk of negligence, and a belief that we have got a lot of expertise in the management of this pandemic or epidemic, if you like. The experts are people from the areas, [inaudible 00:08:26], medicine, internal medicine, immunology, et cetera. But, there is a science that has been totally ignored, and ignored at the expense of everybody, in particular, our children and the elderly, and that is a science called nutritional immunology. It is a real science, and it is a science that should have been applied right from the very beginning of this pandemic to everybody, the elderly, the aged, the middle aged, the young adults and the teenagers and children in particular. Because, if it had been applied by the general practitioners in this country, nutritional immunology is the most powerful defense mechanism that we have against all acute respiratory viral infections, absolutely.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
And what I’m to talking about here are critical nutrients, as well as a lifestyle of healthy diet, but critical nutrients that will actually block the intake, the uptake and the development of the virus, and then eradicate it very quickly from virtually everybody, apart from those who have got some comorbidities that prevent these nutrients from acting as well as they should act. And there are studies, including an Australian study, that has gone ignored by the authorities. And this is absolutely shameful when we know from experience before this pandemic that high dose, high level vitamin D will protect us against these invaders. And so, therefore nobody really at this young age should be vaccinated. They should be looked after and cared for with the sunlight vitamin at least to start with.
Marcus Pearce:
Well, we might get onto that in more detail a little bit later on. I think it’s important that we talk about this tri nutrient protocol, which is not being spoken about anywhere near as much as it probably should. Robyn, did you want to add to this? I know this is something you feel quite strongly about in regards to, should our five to 11 year olds be vaccinated?
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Yes, I’d love to add on to this. The world figures are really very clear. In your young people the risk from COVID is very small. Recovery rates are way over 99%. And as Ian correctly quoted, with small children we’re looking at 99.989, in fact, the figure is percent. So in the USA, in fact, they haven’t been able to confirm even one child dying from COVID who hasn’t had comorbidities. There have been a few deaths, but these are in children who could have died from other things. Australia has two recorded deaths to my knowledge. One, however, was a child who had a very strong comorbidity that in itself is well recognized as being high risk of fatality, and that was pneumococcal meningitis, and the other I understand is a young child with comorbidities. So we probably in Australia don’t have any deaths directly [inaudible 00:11:32] to COVID.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Bear in mind we’ve had COVID across our country now for, now coming close to the two year mark. And so, we are talking possibly no deaths, but certainly close to zero in Australia. Zero in our well, otherwise, well children. So when you consider that, then we need, and we start to talk about bringing in some intervention, that intervention has got to be squeaky clean, and I’ll come to the figures on that later. But yes, we have no evidence that our children are at risk of COVID, and therefore that our children themselves need a vaccination to stop them getting COVID.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
It brings us then to the questions, and I think these are following questions we have as to, does vaccinating our children somehow protect others in our community? Is it somehow going to stop transmission? Is it somehow going to protect our elderly? And those are questions I think that you’ve got later on. But, just on the straight statistics for children, no evidence that we need to do anything other than normal, keep them healthy and well. And there are many, as Ian has [inaudible 00:12:47] and we can go into later, many treatments we can give to someone has acute COVID early in any case.
Marcus Pearce:
Good stuff. Catherine, would you like to follow up on that?
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Yes, I agree with all of that. And really just getting back to basic medicine. If we’re looking at any medical intervention, particularly on a mass scale, there’s some few basic questions we need to ask. First, is it necessary? I think that’s been answered, no. Secondly, is it safe? We don’t know. We don’t know what the long term or maybe even median term possible effects are. Are there other alternatives? We know the answer is, yes. Is it effective? Well, it’s not looking so effective at this stage. So if we just come back to a risk versus benefit analysis as we’re expected to do, then I think the answers are fairly clear.
Marcus Pearce:
Good work. And Robert, you wanted to chime in on that one?
Dr Robert Brennan:
One of the arguments that will come up when you say things such as, there was one fatality in Australia in a child with comorbidities. In the UK population of 67 million, there are supposedly a few dozen fatalities in under 18s. All of them had significant, very serious comorbidities. So when you bring up that argument you say, well, because the risk of death to COVID is so low in this age group, therefore the vaccine is not required. They’ll say, oh yes, but the kids won’t be dying from it, but they’ll be getting multisystem inflammatory syndrome. They’ll be put in hospital severely ill from COVID and the vaccine will protect them from that. That’s A, an assumption, and B, I don’t think that the data bears that out.
Dr Robert Brennan:
Why? Because, they’ll say that the risk of multisystem inflammatory syndrome from COVID, and this is mind you with the first wave, with the Wuhan strain, not Omicron, they’ll say that something like one in 2,000. Now, if that’s the case, then the virus ripped through Japan for example, where was about the 7, 8, 9, 10,000 Japanese kids in ICU with this syndrome? It didn’t happen. There wasn’t a pandemic of multisystem inflammatory syndrome. Where was the 50,000 European kids? It didn’t happen. So I think that’s also a beat up. So it’s not only a matter of mortality, it’s a matter of morbidity. It just is not there in this age group. In this age group, resoundingly, they treat it like the common cold. Now, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t some exception somewhere, but that doesn’t create the rule.
Marcus Pearce:
Let’s talk about this, Robyn. I know, this is something that I’ll direct to you first, this whole conversation around relative risk versus absolute risk. We’ve got to this point pretty quickly tonight, and I think it’s really important that we talk about it. Can you talk into that? Particularly, I suppose when it comes to children that are perfectly healthy that don’t have comorbidities and the risk. Can you outline that point?
Dr Robyn Cosford:
So there are three basic concepts for any medication introduction that we need to consider, whatever medication you’re going to give. So, and that’s necessity, safety and efficacy. So if a drug is highly necessary, you’ve got someone with a nasty disease who is about to die in front of you, and you’ve got a matter of hours to give them something to save them, in that context, we will use experimental drugs. And they might not have a particularly good safety profile, but we want them to work. They must be efficacious. We want them to work because we have a matter of hours to save someone. That’s a very different context to the situation where we have someone with symptoms like a cold. Someone with a headache, if someone has a headache, yes, we might want to take some Aspirin or Paracetamol or something, or say Paracetamol for the headache, but they don’t have to take it.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
It’s not life threatening. It’s not necessary. They would just like to feel that they’ve done something, they would like to feel a bit better. In which case you would hope it’s efficacious. Doesn’t really matter if it’s not, but you would hope it is, but it must have a high safety profile because the need for it is really low. So in this context of the children, our need to vaccinate these children to prevent mortality or morbidity in these children is very low. In fact, there isn’t a need. There are lots of other things as we’ve touched on that we can do to treat them symptomatically and prevent progression of disease to something more serious, so there is no need.
Marcus Pearce:
It’s interesting. So Robyn, go on.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Go on.
Marcus Pearce:
I was just going to say that, again, as a journalist by profession, I feel the conversation around children is that they are, there’s a lot of talk about events being super spreaders, but children being super spreaders, and children being the ones that bring home the germs from school and all the rest of it. So should we take our kids to school? And there’s a lot of conversation almost, as in the kids being the pivotal part in this relationship. So I might actually transfer over to Catherine, but Robyn chime in by all means if you want to here. What about this conversation of children being the so-called super spreaders? I remember, again, my media brain is talking about, in Germany, one of the daily newspapers had, children get the vaccine so you don’t kill your grandma, it’s intense. Are children the super spreaders of COVID? What side are you, Catherine?
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Well, the term is highly emotive, as is so much of the terminology, the languaging about this whole pandemic for a start, so it’s setting the scene. I don’t believe they are. The studies I’ve read are not supportive of that. They did a big study in Wuhan. Granted it was in 2020, there were about 10 million participants that was not supporting spreading from asymptomatic people to household contexts. So I’ve certainly not been convinced about that whole idea. And we used to have a thing called natural herd immunity, but I think it was the WHO in their wisdom over the last two years, deleted that and changed that to vaccine related herd immunity, so when one fell swoop, they got rid of billions of years of natural biological history to instill that idea that we don’t have an immune system. And we rely on children’s robust, innate immune system to create natural herd immunity.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
And because they have, generally speaking, there’s always exceptions, because they have a good robust, innate immunity. They don’t have that high viral load anyway, they eliminate that fairly quickly. So I’d be interested to hear what the others have to say about that, but I think it’s an emotive term to scare people, to guilt people, and I think it’s a terrible message. I’m hearing of children being told that in schools and a whole host of things, so that’s a very detrimental message, and the reality is the absolute opposite, in my opinion. [crosstalk 00:19:59]
Dr Robyn Cosford:
I’d love to support that, Catherine. They’ve done some interesting studies, also even related to things like whooping cough. Where we are finding that native immunity of that is dropping, and as we become more vaccine dependent, we’re wanting to keep vaccinating everybody. And yet intriguingly what they’re finding that, if adults are exposed to little bits of this from your children’s strong immune systems who keep things circulating through the environment, but in low doses, in low amounts.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Exactly.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
If then people are able to maintain their background native immunity to things, and they don’t actually get sick. So we actually need our children to be moving between each other and moving between the community to keep these ordinary viruses circulating at a low enough level that our immune systems keep being reminded and can keep the memory T-cells in production. Whereas, if we’re not exposed to something for too long a period, then we progressively lose those. We have fewer and fewer those, and the immune reactions take longer to kick back in when we’re exposed to something. We need the kids to be doing this
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Exactly, and sadly we’ve become universally germophobic, and that’s a terrible state of things. You just have to go outside, there’s evidence of that. We used to tell people not so long ago, kids play in the mud, kiss the dog and all of that, but the pendulum has swung to the extent that now they’re out there with these useless and dangerous things on their face.
Marcus Pearce:
Well, what I’d like to throw open to you, and again, I say this is a parent with questions, but I think there’ll be lots of parents coming to all of the doctors that are on with us tonight, and I ask this of all of you guys. There is still a real fear, and almost a sense of responsibility that parents are in charge of stopping the spread of COVID, and one of the ways that they can do that is by having their children vaccinated. So I throw the question up to you, which I’m sure many parents have asked doctors who are on the call tonight as attendees, does vaccinating children reduce a chance of COVID spreading in our communities?
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Well, I think… Can you hear me?
Marcus Pearce:
Yes, Paul come on in.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
I think the other panelists have about given you the answer. We’ve forgotten how natural immunity works. This is how natural immunity works in nature. That this is what the species has used for 60 odd million years, however long. Immunity doesn’t come into the world through for the tip of a needle, it comes through interacting with the world. We could all escape into a bubble, like bubble boy who had no immunity in the ’70s, played by John Travolta. We could all escape to a hermetic seal, you know what I mean? But that’s not how you develop immunity. That’s not how the world works. Why we’ve suddenly become hypnotized that all the immunity comes at the end of a needle is a bit mysterious to me, especially when we can see Omicron doesn’t care about the needle tip immunity, it really doesn’t. It likes needle tip immunity.
Marcus Pearce:
Let’s talk about this, and again, I ask you all with the greatest of respect. When we talk about this as a COVID vaccine, I could be using other terms in experimental injections and so on, but for the sake of the conversation, if someone says, Paul, how do these COVID vaccines actually work? What is the response? Because, I think for the curious time poor doctors and then the equally curious parents that just want to know how this is meant to work, how do these COVID vaccines actually work?
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Well, first I wanted to complete the answer that an ideal vaccine would be, you could argue that Omicron is a live attenuated vaccine that you breathe in, so it’s a mucosal vaccine. And your body recognizes it the way it recognizes other respiratory pathogens and develops IGA and good protective mucosal immunity. And that’s why all the treatment protocols, I guess, focus so much on dental hygiene and disinfecting the throat and nose and knocking the viral load there, but your body will take care of any viral load if it’s prepared for it.
Marcus Pearce:
Very good. And if we talk about this in terms of the vaccine actually working, is there something Ian or Catherine you might like to add as well?
Dr Catherine Fyans:
How they work?
Marcus Pearce:
Yeah, just there’s a lot of conversation around the mRNA vaccine, let’s say as a result. And I think that’s something that we don’t talk enough about in this room.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
So the big difference here is that in, with a more traditional vaccine, you’re injected an antigen, a part of the virus, and then it’s assuming that the body will mount an immune reaction to that, and then upon further exposure to the virus, whatever, it will react with that immune response, produce antibodies, et cetera, to fight the virus. With these vaccines, the mRNA vaccine and the DNA vaccine, basically what is being injected into the body is the genetic material, the code for the spike protein, which is the antigen that attaches to the ACE2 receptor and thereby gets entry into the cell.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
So basically we’re injecting spike protein becomes, it’s making the cells become spike protein factories, then it’s assumed that the body will mount an immune response to the spike protein T-cells and antibodies. Now, the problem is that there are studies that have shown that spike protein is itself a toxin. It damages the endothelial, et cetera. And we don’t know if there’s an off button, and I don’t think even, correct me if I’m wrong, other panelists, but I don’t believe the studies have been done to determine if and when that genetic code is actually turned off, so that’s the difference. We’re giving a genetic code for those vaccines at least, to get the [crosstalk 00:26:22]
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
And these are codes that are not seen in nature.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
No, they’re not seen in nature. They’re synthetic.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
So we’re talking about, we’re messing with the DNA, the RNA, the machinery of the cells, the actual code of life. The question is, what could go wrong? We don’t know.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
The question is what could not go wrong?
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
We don’t have the answer, Marcus, because no one’s done the study.
Marcus Pearce:
[crosstalk 00:26:49] hasn’t expressed itself enough, sorry, Catherine.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Just further to what Paul was saying, the spike protein is different to that of the virus, very different in fact. I think that’s what you’re talking about, so it’s synthetic at every level.
Marcus Pearce:
There’s nothing natural about it. Ian, did you want to add to this?
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Just to say that the mRNA actually focuses and locates itself in the ovaries and the testis. And it’s great concern to me that the spike protein crosses the blood brain barrier as well. So that’s why we are seeing some disturbances in female reproductive tract, as well as neuropsychiatric and other neurological disorders. And this is extremely concerning, not only for this generation, but potential infertility problems and future generations. So we are playing with nature, and we’re disturbing nature. And as we’ve spoken about, the bases in the mRNA are not identical to the bases in the natural virus. So this is not just an experiment, but it’s a bizarre experiment using genetic material that was claimed not to insert itself in the DNA of the host, but that is not correct.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Just a point if I may Marcus? Thank you. And it’s good to remind people that we are in the experiment. This is the experiment. So coming back to children and vaccinating our healthy kids, it’s still experimental, and I think people very easily forget that.
Marcus Pearce:
What I might do is, just to, absolutely. (Silence)
Dr Robert Brennan:
… And this is why I think that they intended all along to roll it out to younger and younger age groups. And they’re just doing it incrementally, starting off with the teens, and then you go down to the five to 11s, and then Fauci a number of months ago spoke about bringing it down to the six months olds. Because, the more consumers you can get using it, the more you can reap the profits. That’s one way of looking at it, and I think it’s a valid way of looking at it. Another way is this, there’s a great element here of a moral panic, a moral hysteria. Everyone’s taking this moralist great leap forward to eradicate the virus. And you’re a good person, a good citizen if you get on board with this, and a bad person if you’re a dissenter. And so, in so much as it’s, when something of such moral gravitas takes on the power that it has over the population, it obtains even something of a religious verba, and so then the question is-
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
But they’re giving it to pregnant women.
Dr Robert Brennan:
Exactly, but the question-
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
So they’re giving it prenatally.
Dr Robert Brennan:
Exactly.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
So you’re getting it in the womb, and-
Dr Robert Brennan:
Well, that’s right.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Has anyone looked at the VAERS malformation data? Because, there’s a signal, I think. It just, it’s there to be found.
Dr Robert Brennan:
That’s right.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
And do I have to say another word? The thought that you’ve got increased pregnancy loss, that might be another harm that’s been hidden, or malformations is a concern that’s been hidden. The idea that a practitioner couldn’t even raise that question without fear of losing their registration that’s, I’m just asking basic, simple, moral questions. Like children, the job for a doctor is find me a healthy kid who has died from COVID, not one with cystic fibrosis or morbidly obese is the major risk factor, so look for a 110 kilos eight year old.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
So that’s the challenge. Find me healthy kids that have died from COVID in the last two years. They’ll be hard, so find, but do your due diligence. And then if you can find more than one per million, I think that’s a signal we all need to know about. And then you look at the vaccine data, or you look at just the real world data, look at the sports stars which are collapsing, especially the young men on the soccer pitches. It’s hard to hide that because there’s cameras, which is really annoying for someone, but it’s happening at rates that have never happened in history. So it’s probably happening around you right now in your family. You could frame this in any language you like, but that’s the simple question. Don’t believe us, look at your own eyes, look at your own life, and prove anything we say wrong or right. It doesn’t matter, just look.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
And the data is so accessible. You can just go to OpenVAERS it’s all there, 20,000 deaths, so it’s not hard to find.
Marcus Pearce:
Whether you look for the data, or you look for the anecdotal evidence like you said, Catherine and Paul, it’s all there. Robyn, I know you wanted to add to this point as well.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Yeah, so Robert was touching on a great point about how they’re bringing the age lower and lower. Now, not a lot of people are aware of this, but in 1986, it was introduced that the entire vaccine industry was going to be indemnified against any childhood vaccines, note that any childhood vaccines. So to get these vaccines through into the adults, and everyone I hope understands that they are indemnified [inaudible 00:33:03] install the adult use of these vaccines currently, because they’re under emergency use authorization. As long as they can keep it under emergency use authorization, they remain indemnified. But the point [crosstalk 00:33:14]
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Apologies. I understand they get additional indemnification if they make it onto the childhood immunization register in the States.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
That’s what I was trying to get to for-
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
[crosstalk 00:33:31] You’re right on point. And I thought by this time we pulled out the beer, sorry, Professor Robyn.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
So the reason that they are pulling it down into children is not only because it gives them a large number of population to give it to, but even more importantly, by once if they get it approved for children, by getting it approved for children, they are totally indemnified, because if a childhood vaccine is given to an adult it is still indemnified. So they have just [inaudible 00:34:03] those complete indemnification for the use, [crosstalk 00:34:08] across by getting it approved.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
You always go to ask the question, who benefits? Who benefits from these different decisions? And you’ve got to also decide, do you benefit personally in your lives? And the worst you can say, well, what does all this vitamin stuff mean? I’m the most allopathic of allopathic doctors, because everything on my trolley has an [inaudible 00:34:34] were foreign drugs, toxins, like Curare like drugs. And general anesthetic agents out there have what they call a low therapeutic index. So it all comes down to toxicity. Even pure water can be toxic in volume. And at the other end of the scale you’ve got dioxin, which is so toxic that a microscopic jab in the skin will kill you. So everything’s about risk and reward.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Whether you’re a doctor or a parent, you’ve got to say, look, does the risk and reward match up? And that would apply to me if I was running the floor of an operating theater and deciding, which of the cases is most urgent, and which one interferes with one of the surgeons, dinner schedules versus life and death, and life and limb threatening, so everything is a balance of risk and benefit. And everyone, whether you’re a doctor or a parent, you have to come to the decision, what’s the risk? And what we are saying in essence is that the risk to a healthy young child is very low. And one of the things we’ve really learned in the last two years through focus is that Professor Brighthope’s area is dynamite. We are getting so much evidence of how important it is for vitamin D, Zinc and micronutrients that they have such an astounding effect that I think it’s just lost. We are used to it coming in some appropriate capsule. That’s all I wanted to say.
Marcus Pearce:
I think it’s really important that we get to the solution oriented conversation shortly, because I think, like you said, in the room, in the Zoom room there’s a lot of respect for a lot of the research that Professor Brighthope’s been doing. I do want to play a video before we move onto the next topic of conversation here, which is going to be adverse reactions. But this here was delivered at the World Health Summit in November last year by Bayer’s Pharmaceuticals Division, President Stefan Oelrich. Now, some of you may have seen this, and he’s referencing the injections as cell and gene therapy. I must admit, I find it disturbing viewing, have a look at this.
Stefan Oelrich:
Ultimately the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, would you be willing to take gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body? We would’ve probably had a 95% refusal rate. I think this pandemic has also opened many people’s eyes to innovation in the way that was maybe not possible before.
Marcus Pearce:
I find it interesting and again, almost disturbing how overt he’s and happy to actually share that information so openly. But I think what I just want to ask before we wrap this conversation up on the actual nature of these mRNA vaccines, what does it mean for a developing child? I know there was conversations earlier around potentially just challenges with birth, and the health of children, but for children-
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Who knows? No one knows, that’s the point. If anyone knew, bring them forward, let them speak. All we can do is we look at the trash can of the data, the official data, the stuff that you can look up, there are plenty of links. Do your own research.
Marcus Pearce:
Let’s move on to the adverse reactions. I think the, well, the one that I see focused on a lot is Myocarditis. Ian, if I start with you, what are the most common adverse reactions in children from these COVID vaccinations? Is it Myocarditis? Is there something else that I may not have come across?
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Well, from my perspective looking at vaccination generally, if there is a reaction you can be certain that, that reaction is going to be memorized within the immune system. So if a child suffers from a headache, or a fever, or a local reaction, an enlarged lymph node under the arm from the injection, or Myocarditis, you can be certain that, that child’s health is going to be adversely affected for the rest of its life. Now, I’m saying that because that’s my experience with severe vaccine reactions. With this particular approach the stimulus to inflammation, and that is the spike protein, may be there for a very long period of time, we don’t know. But the fact that it’s there and if it causes a Myocarditis, it’s a local inflammation when you’re talking about Myocarditis, but it’s not just the myocardium that’s inflamed, all the tissues affected by the inflammatory cytokines and the mediators that cause the inflammation in the heart.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Yes, it’s retained in the heart for a period of time or the pericardium for a period of time, but overall biochemistry of the system is disturbed, and it’s disturbed possibly permanently. Giving this mRNA material is irreversible once it’s been given. And that irreversibility is of great concern to me, because there will be tissues, fixed tissues, fixed organs, fixed cells, where the mRNA resides possibly forever in the individual. So we are compromising the individual’s status with regard to inflammation and the resolution of inflammation. And you do not resolve inflammation until you take away the stimulus, and you don’t resolve inflammation by prescribing anti-inflammatories and Cortisone. The only way of truly resolving inflammation is through mother nature. And mother nature has provided us with a large number of nutraceuticals present in our diet, in our foods, and in bottles of pills if you like, that actually help to resolve inflammation. So, yes, I think we do need to take cognizance of just that single simple jab of a potential long term, irreversible, inflammatory trigger.
Marcus Pearce:
What about reproductive issues? Again, I’d probably say this as a parent, but it’s something that I think most parents would probably, going to wonder about. Again, for the more technical among you, what do you know about these COVID vaccines in relation to children, and the potential for it to impact their reproductive system?
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Well, could I say just one thing? Young girls below the age of 11 have actually had vaginal bleeding. Babies suckling on their mothers who’ve been injected have had hemorrhagic type problems as well, so it’s having an effect on the whole system, including the reproductive system in children. No doubt about it.
Marcus Pearce:
Wow. Is there anything anyone else would like to add?
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
You’ve got the work of Dr. Zelenko and others who approached the Rabbinical court in the States. And they were very, very laser focused on fertility issues and changes in the cycle of the menses disruption. Like Professor was referring to, it happening at young ages and also at very vast extremes of age, things that just didn’t happen before, and they have an obvious link on fertility. And so, just look into the rabbinical decisions. They’re really based on the medicine and concerns around fertility, which some of the answers we might not know for several generations, but you have to [inaudible 00:42:47] what we know now. I
Marcus Pearce:
I’d like to just quickly shift gears, because I know a question has come through and it may have come through a number of times from doctors on with us tonight, and that’s in regard to the WHO and their stance on the COVID vaccine for young children. Who would like to make comment first on where the, WHO, stands in relation to the COVID vaccine and children?
Dr Robyn Cosford:
I’d be happy to take that.
Marcus Pearce:
All yours, Robyn.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Look, we have a crazy situation where right up until now, we’ve been proudly saying that, that we follow WHO recommendations for this, and WHO recommendations for that. And yet here we have a situation where we have gone, whether you want to say ahead of, outside of WHO recommendations. Where, WHO themselves have said that, that children under the age of 12 should not be routinely vaccinated with [inaudible 00:43:40] of vaccines. So WHO are saying this, why has our Australian ATAGI come out in their guidelines and saying, well, yes, we are going to be routinely, note the word routinely. There’s a big difference between saying, we’re going to take a select group of children who we think might be at higher risk of COVID effects and so we’ll vaccinate them. That’s quite a different thing just saying, we are going to effectively almost mandate that all children be vaccinated.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
We’re certainly going to apply enough for pressure across all parents, so parents feel that their children should be vaccinated. We have no precedent for this. We just have no precedent, and there is no medical grounds, we cannot see why ATAGI are doing this. It again has to, it is interesting if you do look at all the different members and perhaps everyone for their own peace of mind, or their own education could look up each one of the members of ATAGI, and also have a look at each of the affiliations of each of the members of ATAGI, there is some illumination that could come from that.
Marcus Pearce:
Just in your, in the group experience of the panelists tonight, many years of shared experience together, the specific question from one of the doctors joining us as an attendee right now is, how can we get the message out regarding the 5th of January, 2022 announcement in relation to this? In your experience over the years, what would your response be? Is this the good old, as quickly as you can get word of mouth? I imagine that many doctors feel like their hands are tied in relation to this. What would your advice, again, just on your experience of being a practitioner for years, and that’s to all five of you on tonight. What would your insight be on that? And I ask this to all of you.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
I’d like to see Ian go first, from the point of view of being able to say and point out, that he’s been trying on his ground for a long, long time from the medical professional writing, beautiful letters, and been totally ignored. So can Ian go first? And I might follow [inaudible 00:45:55].
Marcus Pearce:
Over to you, Ian.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Oh, thanks Robyn. You’re so kind. I appreciate it. Look, in 1979 we formed an organization, it became the College of Nutritional Medicine. And we went teaching the public as well as doctors, and training doctors in the use of diet and nutrients in the prevention and treatment of disease. And every lecture I ever gave at those courses and fellowships was around the future of management of pandemics and epidemics.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
So I’ve gone through HIV, AIDS, where we were actually keeping AIDS patients alive three, five, even nine years longer than their prognosis at the time when we all had was [inaudible 00:46:44] to treat them with. And we’ve gone through the flues, and the major flues, and SARS and MERS. I was involved in SARS in Southeast Asia when it hit us, swine flu, the whole lot. And I’ve kept on saying, we do need to have a critical point in time where the public and the profession realize that what we’ve been doing, waiting for, epidemics to come along, and then treating with antivirals or to trying to prevent with vaccines, this is just not going to be good enough when we are really hit with a very, very serious pandemic. And this is not a serious pandemic. It’s not a serious pandemic at all, because we know we can actually prevent and early treat.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
However, because we have not been able to convince the profession, and the public, and the politicians over these last 40 years, we have to some extent failed. But we must take this opportunity now to spread the word around that there are better ways of preventing and treating viral pandemics. And so, I see a silver lining around this pandemic, because there’s so many people now talking about vaccines and talking about alternatives, let me give you an example. A colleague of mine, and I came out with a press release and a whole lot of information at the beginning of 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
And it went out to all of my networks, and they’re quite extensive, ACNEM, and AIMA, and all the doctors belonging to these organizations. And, Robyn, was one of the recipients of a lot of the stuff that I was sending out a lot of the time. But let me tell you, I went to the head of the big body for Complimentary Medicines and another industry member. And they both told me that the sales of vitamin C had skyrocketed, and in fact, vitamin D went off the shelves as well, and the sales in the first quarter of 2020 tripled that of previous years. So we have got a message out there, it’s just that we aren’t big enough, and strong enough, and extensive enough to get that message to really get to a critical number and actually tip the scales in our favor.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
And as Rob Brennan will tell us and most of us will appreciate, there are forces out there that don’t want us to succeed. They only want the vaccine companies and the antiviral companies, sorry, the antiviral medication companies to succeed, because they are the medicines that we have the greatest trust in, but we don’t have a high level of trust in our own immune system, and strengthening the immune system to beat these viruses. So I think education is so critical, and communication is equally critical in getting the message that we can do better than we have, and we will, for the next real killer pandemic, whenever it may occur.
Marcus Pearce:
Well said. Robyn, you wanted to add onto that?
Dr Robyn Cosford:
I think certainly the exciting thing is, I have to be excited. Last year was a very challenging year, where many of us were pushing very hard it seemed to get anyone to be listening, to be getting other doctors to be listening, to anything, but this year I feel there’s a real shift, both because more and more people are seeing what’s happening, more and more people are seeing that a message that we were sold, which is just do the right thing, and two weeks will flatten the curve, and then, okay, we’ll wait for the vaccine. And one dose will be good, oh no, sorry, we need two doses. Oh, oops, sorry, two doses isn’t working, we need three doses. Oh, sorry, that three doses is only going to hold you for three months or six months and then we’re going to need a few a year. And by the way, we are reintroducing the flu vaccine because, yes, flu went quiet for you, but it’s going to come back.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
So people are beginning to start thinking that, hang on, this doesn’t make sense. This doesn’t add up. People are doing more, asking themselves. People are doing more of, well, what else can I do? Hey, I’ve tried this, and it works. I’ve been trying these nutrients and they work, so the message is coming out. People are looking for doctors who are prepared to think a little outside the box. You don’t have to go so hugely out of the box that your head gets chopped off, but enough outside the box that you’re saying to people, well, why don’t we try a bit of this? There are established protocols that can be tried. There are many of them online. There’s the [Zimen 00:51:42] code protocol, there’s CLFCC protocol.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
There’s a tri-therapy, if you would just want to keep it simple. There are so many things that if you don’t want to actually be doing anything yourself, you can just say to patients, go look that up, go do that. You don’t have to own it. If you want to learn about it and own it, you can do that. You can learn a lot more through all of those channels. You can go and join ACNEM and learn about the basis behind what Ian and I are talking about. So really. It is a time where there is hope, where things are happening, and everyone everywhere needs to be spreading the word. We are also trying to actually directly address the government. That’s happening this week legally, and in the next week or two to ATAGI another way. Whether we gain anything on those grounds, we will see.
Marcus Pearce:
We’re just beginning to scratch the surface here, but I feel like we need to start talking in double speed, because I’m looking at the time and it’s counting down quickly. Robert, you wanted to add something to this one?
Dr Robert Brennan:
Plenty. But, if the question is how to reach out to our medical colleagues, I’ve been trying to say for the last two years that this isn’t just, and people who’ve have heard this will think that I’m a broken record, but this isn’t just an academic debate, a debate between clinicians on what the virus is as a biological entity, how to best manage it, and the pandemic as a biological and epidermal logical phenomenon, this is something so much more. And I recall the impact that HIV AIDS had on the world and the fear, but this has taken to orders of magnitude more. This is the history’s largest, greatest moral panic. This is history’s greatest, you could also call it a mass hysteria. You could call it history’s greatest propaganda campaign.
Dr Robert Brennan:
We are utterly saturated with a message. I have a Telstra on my phone. My phone says something. It contains a piece of propaganda all the time at the top of the phone near the charging bar. When the NAB bank reorganizes their acronym into jab. When we drive under an overpass, there’s COVID drugs. Saturation advertising, and this is something that’s propaganda, and it’s something that’s more than just, oh, well, this is a deadly virus, how do we manage it? It’s something that has taken on-
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Hey, Robert, a similar question is, does it provide protection?
Dr Robert Brennan:
What does protection mean?
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
And especially now, with the version of the bug going around and sweeping around the world at record pace-
Dr Robert Brennan:
Well, what does protection mean? If parents, for example, are so propagandized and so fearful that they will pull up the out the stops to ensure that they cover all the bases, then of course they’re going to vaccinate their kids because, well, their kids might be super spreaders as we spoke previously, even though the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, there’s no utility-
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Kids aren’t the victim. Adults pose a greater danger to children than children do to adults, we know that.
Dr Robert Brennan:
Agreed.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
So why are we speaking like it’s the other way around? If we’re wrong, prove us wrong, but that’s my understanding.
Dr Robert Brennan:
But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying, I’m trying to put myself into the mind of the parents and what might motivate them. So one formulation of it is that, they’re so fearful that they’re wanting to even sacrifice their children to attain their own safety. Another formulation is this, in so much as this is like [inaudible 00:55:32], this like a secular religion. And so, if it’s a secular religion, the question is, when are you going to baptize yourself and your children? At what age are you going to take a model where you baptize them at adulthood, or is this symbolic significance of the ritual that you, of vaccination against COVID so great that you’ve just got to have it as early as possible? You’ve got to make sure that your kids are initiated into the cult as early as possible. [crosstalk 00:56:01] I think that the risk has to match psychological and sociological drivers here.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
When we say the risk is one in a million or something, and the thing you’re treating is many orders, potentially orders are magnitude more harm-
Dr Robert Brennan:
But the risk to those that are in a psychological phenomenon, it’s not just biological risk. If you have something that is a moral stain, you must remove that moral stain everywhere in everything. This is also the essence of totalitarianism.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
I agree with you, Rob, but I’m just saying we don’t have to have it so abstract. We can just ask people to look at the data. Look at the publicly available data. I think that’s the thing we have in common, that we’ve looked at publicly available data, and we’ve formed certain conclusions of what is easy and beneficial. And as a parent, and as a doctor, we all have children. We all have loved ones and we want to provide the best advice. It’s really as simple as that. And the question is, why would you listen to anyone? You have to trust the information and my advice is, if you’ve got safe stuff that you can use and it works or doesn’t work, it cost you a few cents, but you’ll see if it’s beneficial in your own life, just do the experiment. Check us, do your own research, it won’t take long, but maybe not on Google.
Marcus Pearce:
Now, we’re just about to, we’re going to go 10 minutes over folks. We’ve just ticked over 9:00 and I still really need to get to questions around legal repercussions, because those questions are coming in strong. Catherine, I know you wanted to say something. Can you say it in triple speed? So I can ask about legal repercussions, because a lot of doctors want to know about this one.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Triple speed, okay.
Marcus Pearce:
Triple speed.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
I can’t remember what I was going to say. But I agree with Robert. This whole thing, it’s much bigger picture than just a pandemic, that’s part of it. We’re going to have to rethink everything about health, we really are. We don’t go through a crisis like this without there being some very fundamental changes that come out of it. And what alarms me mostly is that, we’ve been subject to a campaign of terror, and we’ve become a culture of fear, and what are we teaching our children? And really, one of the things that needs to change is getting away from the problem reaction solution model, paying homage to the external thing, the external locus of control that will save us. And this is why people are lining up to have the ritual of having the needle and get back to what can we do ourselves, as has been discussed tonight to educate ourselves about health. So it’s working on the inside out rather than just the outside in.
Marcus Pearce:
Well said. Now, there’s a number of questions coming in from doctors, and these question’s out, and I throw this open to any of you who would like to go first on this. “As doctors, what are the risks of being sued for vaccines that harm or cause as death?” Now, I have a feeling this answer is different for the COVID vax versus other more traditional vaccines. But can I open that, I’ll throw that question open to the panel. What are you for this question that’s coming up regularly tonight? Oh, stunned, silence. They want answers. This is Doctors With Questions. They want answers. This is the question they probably want the answer to the most.
Prof Ian Brighthope:
My understanding is that the government has conferred immunity to prosecution to the medical profession and others who are providing the jab. That’s my understanding of the Australian government’s position on this.
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Another question is, are potentially we going to hurt this person or our community, rather than am I going to be sued as a conscience?
Marcus Pearce:
It comes back to exactly what you just said about a moral stain, and then it’s the moral compass that many of us are, like you said, facing, and many doctors on here tonight are facing that every minute of every day at the moment. A couple more questions before we wrap it up. I’m just going to go to questions from the doctors that are on here tonight. Oh, look, here’s a curly one. It’s come up a couple of times tonight. It’s not curly. Why is the media not covering this information? This is what I mean.
Marcus Pearce:
We could probably be here until midnight if we want to go there. And I say this with love, as someone who does a lot of work in aging well. There are decades of experience on the panel tonight. And if I ask this question of you seriously, why is the media not covering this information? You’ll probably all sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists, because as soon as we say, well, there might be some agendas at hand here, but I’ll ask you guys, why is the media not covering?
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Well? Who controls the media? Because, the narrative’s the same pretty much around the world. So there’s got to be a central controlling.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
There was a directive put out called the trusted news in initiative. And I forget exactly what year it was, but basically an agreement made between all the big media agencies that they would only put out the trusted news that met with approval. And so, that’s why you see, when you look at all the different medias across the world, the talking heads basically saying the same thing. In fact, sometimes you see them using exactly the same-
Dr Catherine Fyans:
Word for word.
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Word for word. But there’s this thing called the trusted news initiative that they all signed up for, and they have to comply with that, and that’s what’s happening. So there’s certainly a background level of control and feeding into the media narrative of what is allowed. There are only occasional channels that run a little outside of that. We have one Australia Sky News that is a little outside of that. In the U.S. the Fox News is a little outside of that, but even there, they’re limited in how much they bring and they say.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
Well, I’d say, don’t be out of any of that. Just think of your family. Think of your friends, think of your loved ones, make the best decision, do your own research. Don’t trust anyone, including us. We are pointing to simple stuff like stupid databases of whatever, and whether you want to give certain things to your kid versus whether you want to not, it’s a simple question, do your own. What we’re saying to the doctors is, look at some of the data in the VAERS and the EudraVigilance. These are publicly searchable. We’ve been doing it for some time. There’s obviously a signal there, and do you want to give that to your loved ones or not? And then you’re saying, well, what about natural immunity and how that works? And we haven’t talked about mucosal immunity, but when you get exposed to something, naturally you develop IGA and we can go on, but mucosal immunity is not a joke. It’s how we get natural immunity.
Marcus Pearce:
We need to wrap it up, Paul, I’m so sorry, but I want to throw to each single, each one of our incredible panel members tonight. You’ve each got 30 seconds for closing comments, and I’m going to go in order of my screen here and begin with Professor Brighthope. And again, thank you so much professor for sharing your wisdom tonight. And I wish we had more time to talk about Zinc and Vitamin C and Vitamin D even more, but thank you for your wisdom. But tonight, 30 seconds closing comments, how would you like to conclude tonight?
Prof Ian Brighthope:
Basically we command nature by obeying her. We’ve got to look after our internal environment, as well as the external environment. The external environment has been damaged very badly, but we need a champion for our internal environment. Somebody who will actually speak up about how we can live a lifestyle that’s going to increase our resistance, not only to COVID and other infectious diseases, but all of the other diseases that are impinging on us in Western industrialized society.
Marcus Pearce:
Very well said. Thank you so much Professor Brighthope. Over to you, Paul Oosterhuis, your closing comments. 30 seconds.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
My apologies. I appear to have been just a disruptor here tonight.
Marcus Pearce:
Not at all. You’ve been Wonderful.
Dr Paul Oosterhuis:
But just to keep it simple with the doctors as with the parents, because I don’t know many doctors which aren’t parents, or children, or members, so we’re all humans. And my message is, don’t trust me, just look at the data. Look at the publicly available data and make a decision if that’s acceptable to you. It’s done.
Marcus Pearce:
Well said. Thank you so much, Paul. Catherine Fyans, thank you so much for your contribution tonight. How would you like to conclude?
Dr Catherine Fyans:
I think this ordeal is making us reexamine our collective beliefs around health, collective and individually. And I just want to make a comment. We assume a lot of things. No one owns healthcare, even though they think they do, no organization owns healthcare, no one owns anyone else’s health. So when we take that truth back, then that might change what we feel we can do regarding choice. And that’s probably 30 seconds, maybe I should stop there.
Marcus Pearce:
We could be here till midnight, it’s been wonderful. Thank you so much, Catherine, and thank you. And to you Robyn Cosford, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom tonight. You’re a free woman, as you said at the top of the show tonight. And before I ask you for your concluding comments, I do want to apologize. I just want to clarify something I said earlier tonight. Northern Beaches Care Centre, while donating highly to many charities, is not itself a not for profit, in case I may have misinterpreted something in my introduction tonight with Robyn. But Robyn, how would you like to conclude your contribution tonight?
Dr Robyn Cosford:
Totally in agreement with what everyone else has said. And that gives me a leeway to come in just to make a really strong statement and that is, we’ve got effectively no deaths from COVID, and yet in five days from the beginning of the vaccine rollout, Kerry Chant herself has come out on the New South Wales tweet saying, we’ve done well. And we’ve had three deaths and 106 adverse reactions out of 377,000 vaccinations. We did better than we thought. Three deaths in five days at the beginning of a rollout that we are planning to put across all our children. Already, there are more deaths in five days from the vaccine than there have been in the entire time of COVID across our entire population.
Marcus Pearce:
Wow, unbelievable. And to you, Robert Brennan, how would you like to conclude?
Dr Robert Brennan:
So many messages, so little time. We are living in times that are unprecedented. This is a different virus to others. This is a different vaccine to previous vaccines and the victories of vaccinology over smallpox and polio. This is very, very different. I would ask that the doctors to consider whether they’re parents themselves or not, that they encourage a message where children are raised, not just to be as biological objects, biologically healthy, but also they’re thinking sentient beings that are vessels of principle. And so, whether they have the vaccine or not, to resist things such as a vaccine, passport, why? Because principles of privacy, of bodily autonomy, principles of liberty, these are things worth fighting for. These are things worth raising your children for and to develop a herd immunity of ideas in favor of these principles. Resist the vaccine passport of all counts.
Marcus Pearce:
I think it’s been many times over, first do no harm. And I wanted to just thank all of you for just sharing so much of your wisdom. And you’ve done it with grace, and some entertainment, and some lively conversation. And to all of the doctors that have been working hard today, and you gave up your time to come and join this incredible panel tonight, thank you for making the effort to be here. There are many ways to connect moving forward. Of course, we must say sincere thank you to the Health Alliance Australia. You can connect with Health Alliance Australia at healthallianceaustralia.org. And to the COVID Medical Network, you can connect at covidmedicalnetwork.com.
Marcus Pearce:
Parents With Questions is going absolutely gangbusters. Connect at parentswithquestions.com and also on Instagram as well. But to all of our wonderful panelists tonight, to Robert, to Robyn, to Catherine, to Ian, and to Paul, thank you so much guys for, again, sharing your wisdom and your generosity of time. To everyone in the background, to Kelly and to Carl who’s been pushing all the buttons, and everyone who’s been organizing tonight, thank you so much. And to everyone watching, have a wonderful night. Thanks for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you on our next edition in these series of webinars. And take care, and bye for now.