You’re going to want to watch this. Peter McCullough speaks at the 78th Annual Meeting of AAPS on Oct 2, 2021:

https://rumble.com/vnbv86-winning-the-war-against-therapeutic-nihilism-and-trusted-treatments-vs-unte.html

Dr McCullough has been one of the major champions of the early treatment movement. Now — though he himself was vaccinated early — he more and more refuses to recommend the vaccine(s), when asked.

Safety should be the number one concern in a vaccine rollout. The fact that we are mandating vaccines — using coercion of any kind to press people who may not want or need an investigative product injected into their bodies, into doing so under threat of losing their livelihoods and liberties — is made especially appalling given the lack of health data, the lack of independent oversight, and the collusive relationship of the CDC, the NIH, and the FDA with the pharmaceutical companies producing these vaccines.

The push to get a needle in every arm has been staggering. Oppressive, even. And now, punitive.

The NIH owns stock in Moderna. Half of it, even. 2 of the agencies are the sponsors of the vaccine. The third is the oversight agency. The conflicts of interest are so severe and obvious as to be surreal.

An act of regulatory malfeasance provided the Biden Administration with cover to mandate what is still an investigational gene transfer therapy to nearly every American. To wit: Pfizer’s vaccine is still under Emergency Use Authorization, which the FDA extended. A legally separate and distinct product — which is how it is described in the literature, leaving room for medicinal distinction — BioNTech’s Comirnaty vaccine, was given FDA approval — but it was required to carry out additional studies, which means it won’t be on the market until sometime later.

Some Pfizer apologists will tell you that the Pfizer shot and Comirnaty are the same thing. That they are the exact same medicine. This may or may not be the case. But the FDA labeled them separate and distinct. And it is the BioNTech product that was “fully approved” — itself an act of irresponsible public health policy.

For this reason, if you are mandated to take a vaccine, demand Comirnaty. No one can administer it to you. Because it doesn’t yet exist.

More, Pfizer has still not released the list of all ingredients in their vaccine. 20% of the ingredients, in fact, have been redacted in the literature. “Fact-checkers” will tell you that the redacted ingredient is salt water. They’ll tell you to file a FOIA request to get the full list un-redcated. One thing we know that is in the shots is PEG. That people weren’t asked about allergies to this before receiving the shot led to a host of anaphylactic shock cases and precipitated the 15 minute monitoring period (which, you noticed, Joe Biden didn’t have while he was on set supposedly taking a booster shot).

The speculation has been — and I don’t believe it to be speculation at all — that graphene oxide is one “trade secret” ingredient, because hydrogel, which is used in Lipid Nano-Particle delivery systems to protect the very tenuous mRNA code, is made from graphene oxide. Graphene oxide is quite strong. It’s conductive. It’s also poison in humans.

Scientists have begun looking at what’s in the vials. And a recent German/Austrian conference showed troubling findings. As did Dr Peter Young, and a consortium of Spanish researchers, earlier. The consensus of those who’ve looked closely seems to be that there are many bits of material that are inorganic and look “engineered,” along with bits of various metals.

At any other time before the World Economic Forum’s Build Back Better campaign — picked up on by the Biden candidacy and presidency — independent safety boards would have shut this program down in January, according to Dr McCullough, who himself has chaired a number of these boards. Yet here we are, 10 months in to universal vaccination, and we still don’t know which vaccine supposedly works: Pfizer contains 30 mg or mRNA; Moderna more than 3x that amount (100 mg); and J&J uses a different technology altogether, though it works the same in principle to incite spike protein production in the body.

Shouldn’t we know which product to take? Who the winner was? Shouldn’t we know the risks of each based on pre-existing conditions? It wasn’t so long ago that the left was very intent on making sure those with pre-existing conditions got the health insurance coverage they needed; now, the same government who provided those benefits can tell people with pre-existing medical problems that as a condition of employment, or of eating in a restaurant, or of going to a gym, they must take an investigational drug that puts them at a higher risk of adverse events than their counterparts, and that could quite possibly kill them.

6 studies now show that the Covid-recovered, in addition to being virtually immune from reinfection, are more likely to suffer adverse events than the Covid naive [3 are discussed in the linked piece, which pre-dates the release of the second 3 studies]. This is potentially due to a phenomenon called pathogenic priming. So shouldn’t we be testing for antibodies and immunity before coercing those who don’t need a vaccine to take one?

Is no one liable?

Congratulations. This is what universal healthcare looks like: the government assumes the fiduciary role that used to belong to the doctor-patient relationship.