By Pam Long
May 20, 2020

A recent vaccine panel highlights the need to be a conscious consumer of media, emerging health guidance, and state health officials.

Listen for the Omission

In the May 19, 2020 Denver 360 vaccine panel discussion, there are four panelists. Three men promote a non-existent SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and I (representing CHCA) promote risks of vaccines. The editing of the panel interviews could lead you to believe that a vaccine is the only solution to the current problem. Below I will include the discussion summary follow-up that I sent to the reporter with green text of what was not included in the final news production and article:

Dear Meghan,

Thank you for your time on Friday. You are the first reporter I have ever talked to about vaccines that asked questions about ingredients, lack of liability, and privacy concerns with database tracking. I have attached two pictures of my 16-year-old son, Josh, who was injured at age 15-months from the MMR vaccine, which caused encephalopathy or chronic encephalitis (brain injury). This year we had to start weekly IV treatment to maintain his complex health challenges as a result of vaccine injury, that we will never be compensated for. Thank you again, Pam Long

The context or history of fast-tracked vaccines: 

      1. 1976 Swine flu vaccine caused GBS, paralysis
      2. 1999 Rota virus vaccine caused infant deaths & was recalled
      3. 2009 H1N1 vaccine caused narcolepsy

 The ethical obligation to treat people immediately with known effective treatments:

      1. Chloroquine (antiviral) combined with Zinc (stops viral replication)
        1. The US NIH found this to be a “potent treatment” in 2005. link1
        2.  Zinc & Coronavirus in 2010: link2 
        3. Recent French successful study on 1000 Covid19 patients with HCQ: link3
      2. US Doctor use IV Vitamin C with Vit. A & Vit D, and nebulized iodine, hydrogen peroxide results in 85 COVID patients with zero hospitalizations and deaths, replicating formal study IV Vit C results in China. link4

   The risk-benefit of a potential vaccine in the future:

    1.  Corona virus vaccine could be 5 years away (and will not contain all strains & mutations. link5
    2. mRNA vaccines are experimental, and not FDA approved. They have side effects to include uncontrolled swelling and blood clots. They have lower effectiveness in humans than in animal models. They have serious potential for causing auto-immunity. link6
    3. Microneedle vaccines (like an invisible tattoo) with digital tracking to be read by IR scanners as a condition to participate in society raise ethical concerns about privacy and coercion. link7  


Notice the Herd Immunity Paradigm Shift

Since 2014, this is my first vaccine interview that did not start with a question about the societal obligation to herd immunity. For years lawmakers and the media have been pushing legislation in every state to remove vaccine exemptions for the alleged goal of 95% herd immunity. I mentioned to the reporter that naturally acquired collective immunity at 60% would protect the vulnerable, but she showed no interest in the topic. Sweden has achieved herd immunity: without lockdowns, without economic collapse, and without a vaccine. Why has the US lost its zeal for herd immunity? Consider that the profit from a worldwide SARS-CoV-2 vaccine or the new drug Remdesivir has temporarily replaced the herd immunity paradigm. Established low-cost treatments of Chloroquine and Zinc are not profitable. Expect the “new normal” to promote that the vaccine can only work effectively if 100% of the herd takes it. And you will need a booster every year for the seasonal prevalent strain. Speaking as a former herd member, the herd abandons parents who have vaccine injured children. As evident by the reporter including a statement that her CDC research does not support that the MMR vaccine can cause encephalopathy. Yet, the FDA includes encephalopathy in the MMR disclosure on page 7. Her dismissal of the injured demonstrates that we are not “all in this together.”

Oppose Health Legislation from Unhealthy People

The pandemic has shown us that very unhealthy, unqualified people are making far-reaching health recommendations for entire states.  Can we agree that health guidance loses credibility when it comes from people who are clearly showing evidence of poor health? For example, consider Rep. Kyle Mullica, prime sponsor of SB163, and his interview photo. From an objective health perspective, he looks overweight and lacking vitality. In the interview, he struggles to maintain eye contact — the hallmark of trustworthiness and honesty. Why would anyone take health advice from this man? Would you aim to emulate his health? Should you respect Rep. Mullica’s health advice solely based on the fact that two years ago he gained the credential of nurse? Does it matter to you that his vaccine bill was drafted by a GlaxoSmithKline lobbyist?

Compare Rep. Mullica to my picture as the CHCA representative in the interview. I am a parent who lacks any political or financial incentive to promote vaccines. I voluntarily warn the public about vaccine adverse reactions, like my son experienced. I am the lone panel dissenter on the push for a virus “cure,” while the word “vaccine” and syringe images are repeated over and over again. I fully expect to be fact-checked, while the majority vaccine proponents can say anything without pushback and without references. But should my life experience matter? Do I look healthy? What if I mentioned that at age 45, I do not require any prescription drugs nor have I had any surgeries? Why aren’t those the goals of state strategic health plan? It is rational for me to conclude that following Rep. Mullica’s health advice would result in a deterioration of my health. In a technocracy, we blindly give our trust to unqualified people who may hold credentials that empower them to push profitable agendas. Likewise, our state health department is financially incentivized to promote those same drug company agendas.

In conclusion, we need every man, woman, and child to oppose SB163 in Denver when Colorado legislation resumes on May 26.  This bill aims to revoke vaccine exemptions by an approval process that will result in zero approved exemptions, and uses school entry and state database tracking as coercion. SB163 gives unlimited power to CDPHE: all vaccines, all doses, all ages.  CDPHE has demonstrated abuse of power. Contact tracing is the new skip tracing, posed to target people who are not vaccine compliant as fugitives. Now is the time to protect choice in Colorado because you may not want an experimental mRNA vaccine this fall.