Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.
I find Dr Hirschhorn’s statements somwehat contradictory, when it comes to the difference between natural infection and vaccines.
He starts with a scare: spike protein is “very toxic” and “destroys the body”. At the same time mentioning: “many people were a-symptomatic”, which does not happen in the case of flu for example.
How does this “toxicity” compare to the dangers of flu for example? Doesn’t the flu virus hold the same potential to “destroy the body” in those susceptible/weak? Dr Hirschhorn is referring to the need for proper data on everything, so can he substantiate the difference in “toxicity” between spike protein and flu, based on STATISTICS? I am not diminishing the dangers of either Covid-19 or the flu, but we have never been talking about the flu as being “very toxic” to scare the population into vaccinations/lockdowns/mask wearing/social distancing/etc. and the death statistics of covid-19 are not much different at this point.
He goes on mentioning that “the official death rate from the CDC is 1 million Americans”.
Why does Dr Hirschhorn omit to mention the fact that the CDC also published the data regarding the % of comorbidities, which concludes that actually only 5% of these were without underlying causes and that 95% had more than 4 comorbidities?
Dr Hirschhorn does not mention the vaccines at all in his monologue about the dangers of the spike protein, until Malcolm (thankfully) asks about the difference between natural infection and vaccination-induced spike protein production, leading to long Covid.
When asked, Dr Hirschhorn says “the mRNA vaccines that pump in enormous amounts of spike protein have the same potential for causing long Covid symptoms”. This sentence by itself is contradictory: if the spike protein is the “very toxic” material that “destroys the body” as he mentioned, then isn’t it logical to state that the more of the spike protein in the body, the more the detrimental effects? “The same potential” does not sound like that at all and thus he diminishes the difference between the two to zero. He later doubles down by saying that the micro bloodclots appear the SAME as the people who get the infection.
This makes no sense to me, hearing it from a scientist who clearly states the cause of the bloodclots and it is no rocket science that the more of a poison, the more the harm. Especially given all the autopsies showing how spike protein has travelled through the body to cause harm.
Dr Peter McCullough stated in interviews that the vaccines cause a much heavier detrimental effect on the body than natural infection with Covid-19, because of the heavier load of spike protein to the body. This is also confirmed by those around us who has been vaccinated, who are falling ill much easier with longer lasting effects since their immune system is compromised, while the unvaccinated get over infections much faster, be it viral or bacterial.
Since Dr Hirschhorn seems to confirm the dangers of the spike protein, he also confirms that the “enormous load” of vaccines results in the detrimental effects, why does he contradict himself by stating that the vaccines cause THE SAME effect on people in terms of long Covid as natural infection?
I find this totally baffling. Especially considering he is in full attack on Dr Bruce Patterson’s methods to treat long Covid. Which is the first time in the past 2 years that I see a doctor on the other side of the narrative actually attacking a doctor on the same side, meaning not flindfolded by the mainstream narrative that vaccines are the ONLY solution. For someone who seems to contradict himself, this seems all the more remarkable. From where I’m looking at this, out of the two doctors, Dr Hirschhorn seems to be more on the side of vaccines than Dr Patterson.. for the simple reason that while Patterson advocates for medicines/treatments as solution, Hirschhorn states that vaccines are no different than natural infection.
Assuming that Dr Hirschhorn is being extremely cautious and not calling out vaccines for their potentially much more dangerous effect due to spike protein overload vs natural infection, in order not to be cancelled or losing his license, the contrast is remarkable how openly he does attack another scientist, which is also unheard of in the scene of scientists who speak of the truth.
Whatever his motives, I have my doubts whether he acts in good faith, if he does not stand out clearly with an opinion about the vaccines. At this point, not making a difference between vaccines or natural infection is clearly a sign of being misinformed or having an alterior motive.
Disclaimer: I am by no means propagating for Dr Bruce Patterson in this. Having watched some of his presentations, I do not trust him AT ALL and subscribe to Dr Hirschhorn’s analysis on Patterson’s stance and profiting off the situation, without proof of effectiveness.
Nonetheless, this does not mean that by Dr Hirschhorn finding an easy target, will give him a clean slate on his own statements.