LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL

U

Search

Many Voices, One Freedom: United in the 1st Amendment

March 29, 2024

M

Menu

!

Menu

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The COVID pandemic is far from over. It is now morphed into long COVID with millions of people suffering.

Sometimes what seems like a miraculous new medical remedy comes along. And without government involvement. Millions of long COVID sufferers now have an opportunity to use a new remedy and judge whether it is safe and truly effective. In contrast, the medical establishment and specialists work at fixing the many diverse symptoms and illnesses of long COVID.

What are long COVID sufferers to do? There are no easy choices.

This analysis and discussion aim to help them make informed and difficult decisions.

Read the full article: No Easy Cure For Long COVID, and then listen to The Voice of a Nation, with special guest Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn has testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles on COVID. He is the author of Pandemic Blunder and a professor at the University of Wisconsin, where he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.


The Voice of a Nation can be heard weekdays at 6 pm ET, with an encore at 11 pm ET. Listen on iHeart Radio, our world-class media player, or our free apps on AppleAndroid, or Alexa. You can email your questions to [email protected].

AMERICA OUT LOUD PODCAST NETWORK
AMERICA OUT LOUD PODCAST NETWORK

America Out Loud is the premier news network with a diverse array of talk shows that inform and inspire. A daily resource for smart people.

MANY VOICES, ONE FREEDOM: UNITED IN THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Join our community: Your insights matter. Contribute to the diversity of thoughts and ideas.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peka Bali
Peka Bali
1 year ago

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.

Sitewide Newsfeed

More Stories
.pp-sub-widget {display:none;} .walk-through-history {display:none;} .powerpress_links {display:none;} .powerpress_embed_box {display:none;}
Share via
Copy link