search icon
Could Boosters Backfire?—Dr. Paul Alexander on Booster Shots, Natural Immunity, and the Failures of Lockdowns | PART 1

“We do not know how the immune system is going to react to so much boosting. Why? Because the vaccine developers did not study it.”

In this two-part episode, we sit down with Brownstone Institute’s Paul Alexander, an expert in evidence-based medicine, research methodology, and clinical epidemiology. He served in the Trump administration in Health and Human Services as a COVID-19 policy adviser. He breaks down the extensive data on natural immunity, the failures of lockdown policies, and the risks associated with COVID vaccines for children.

“If you say these vaccines are safe for my children, if you stand by them … remove the liability protection [for vaccine developers]. Then we will talk about vaccinating children,” Alexander said.

Watch part two of this interview with Dr. Paul Alexander here. 


Jan Jekielek: Dr. Paul Alexander, such a pleasure to have you at American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Paul Alexander: Thank you very much, too, and what an honor and a privilege to be here.

Mr. Jekielek: Oh, that’s very kind of you to say, and it’s great to be with a fellow Canadian once in a while. So I’ve been looking at one of your recent pieces that you’ve authored for the Brownstone Institute, where you’re a scholar, which looks at, I think now you’re up to 124 different papers in the literature review of natural immunity of the-

Dr. Alexander: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: Why don’t you tell me what you know about natural immunity? Because clearly you’ve read just about everything there is to know about COVID natural immunity.

Dr. Alexander: Thank you. And thank you for this opportunity. I think the challenge is that when we first started to move towards the vaccine, there was a lot of publications and discussion by high-level people in the United States government, Canadian government, and other governments that the population has to go towards the vaccine and that the natural exposure immunity was not optimal, would not give them protection against SARS-CoV-2 or the disease.

I’m not an immunologist, but a virologist by training. My training from McMaster University under Gordon Guyatt was in evidence-based medicine. But I knew enough from my biology and my academics that vaccines cannot confer the broad, robust sterilizing immunity that natural exposure immunity can because natural immunity looks at the pathogen, and in this case, the SARS-CoV-2 virus, entirely.

So when your immune response takes a look at the virus, the SARS virus, it looks at the entire outer surface of the virus: all of the bumps, all of the nooks, crannies, all the proteins, all attachments. It looks at the viral envelope, the membrane protein, the inside, the nucleocapsid. It looks at the spike protein.

The vaccines, based on how the COVID vaccines were developed, focused only on the spike antigen, the spike, which sits on the ball of the virus, that spicule that you see sticking out. And there are just a few epitopes, which are binding regions that your antibodies could bind to. It’s a much different situation. So the vaccine actually has, out of the gate, a suboptimal look at the virus.

And that is why with the mutations, the hot spot on the virus is the spike where your mutations are taking place, through the receptor-binding domain. So when that spike mutates, that is why it’s a problem because the vaccine was built on the initial Wuhan strain in February, March, April 2020. And if the mutations are taking place on the spike, like today, the predominant is the Delta variant, the immunity conferred by the vaccine is missing the Delta. It can’t cope with the Delta, and that is why we are having breakthrough infections.

So my area of expertise is in evidence-based medicine. So I was taught that we look at the body of evidence. That’s the entire landscape. Each study may not be perfect, and some would be higher quality, some would be lower quality. But when you engender the entire body of evidence, you could pretty much get a good glean of the situation and to make more trustworthy statements about your findings.

And as I began to look, since evidence began to be accumulated from about February 2020, there’ve been quite a lot of studies, quite a lot of good publishers and researchers who have put out papers showing particularly that there’s a strong, natural immune response toward the virus.

And that, particularly most recently, what we are seeing is that when you look at the natural immune response versus the vaccine response, you are seeing that persons who are vaccinated are beginning to become highly infected much more readily than the persons who are COVID recovered already.

So it demonstrated that the persons who were naturally exposed and who developed an immune response already had some protection that the vaccine was not the… There were breakthroughs. And as I began to look at the evidence, I began to accumulate them in a very systematic manner and read the studies.

And then I decided, you know what, let me collate it together in one publication so that I could put it out there and tell the research community, “Look, here’s the evidence. And you judge for yourself. This is the body of evidence.” And initially it was about 70 papers. But as time went on, I read more, and scientists from across the world began to reach out to me and share with me and say, “Look, you should also include this. Take a read. What do you think?” And once I found it gave an explanation, and it gave insight that, look, this is a natural immune response here. This could be beneficial.

And it’s very important because in one particular inclusion in that list, there was a study done in 2008, 2010, where researchers looked at persons who were infected during the Spanish flu. They were five or six years old and young kids. But what they found was these people in 2008, 2010, who were still alive, almost 90 years old, so almost a hundred years later, they found in their blood that there was still an immune response to this Spanish flu virus. There was a T-cell immunity, etc. It was fascinating. In fact, it was eye-opening to the research community. It looks like you can develop a natural immune response that will last you for the rest of your life.

So I decided to put it together and present it. And it has, using the term, gone viral. I’ve gotten calls from senators, the United States government, from Congress people who are using it as part of legislative bills. And the reality is, at the core, it’s just the available evidence today to show that natural immunity is a real thing. And stacked up against the vaccine, it confers you… Some people want to see it is at least equal, but the totality of the evidence suggests superior immunity than the vaccine.

Mr. Jekielek: That’s very interesting. You’re basically saying that looking at the totality of evidence available is more useful than looking at a particular study that might tell you what you want to hear or confirm something that’s a common wisdom. Now, the statement that you say it’s superior to vaccine, that’s not from a totality of the studies, that’s from a few of the studies. Why are you more conditional on that point?

Dr. Alexander: In the sense of… You mean, how do I arrive at that conclusion?

Mr. Jekielek: Yes, yes.

Dr. Alexander: Well, you look at a study out of Cleveland by Shrestha et al. They looked at about 55,000 healthcare workers, and they followed up those who were not vaccinated that they recovered from the virus. And they followed them up and found that in no instance was there a new repeat infection.

They found instances where those who were vaccinated were. There was this study, seminal study that we thought in the scientific community. We put an end to the debate on whether the vaccine immunity is better than the natural immunity, in particular the issue around the vaccine mandates, because there’s this big push to separate people from the workforce in the United States and in other countries, in Canada, etc., who are not vaccinated.

And the argument is very simple. How could you take a nurse who has been dealing with patients for the last two years, been exposed and she’s likely or he’s likely already immune? They probably got infected—built an immune response.

And you are now saying that if they made that personal decision for their own bodily integrity, and they know the science, and they are best able to decide that they don’t want the vaccine for whatever reasons. They know they are already COVID recovered, you are saying that they can’t continue to work or have their career when they’re actually  safer than the vaccinated nurse. And I’ll tell you why.

I’ll draw on two studies quickly for you. There was a seminal one I started to talk about by Gazit et al. out of Israel, where they looked at double vaccinated persons, Israelis, those who were COVID recovered, and a third group of COVID recovered with one vaccine, one shot. And at the 1,000-foot level, they found that the double vaccinated persons were about 13 times more at risk of becoming infected with Delta. They found that they were about 27 times more at risk of developing symptomatic COVID and about eight or nine times more at risk of becoming hospitalized.

So that study actually, it’s being almost swept under the rug, and the scientific community, like the CDC, etc. pretends it does not exist. But that is the study that actually we felt would settle down everyone, make them understand that at least COVID recovered person should be recognized. The immunity should be recognized because the vaccinated person is demonstrating the ability to become infected at higher levels.

Now why I say that is this, there was this study out of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam by Chau et al. And what they found was, they looked at 69, I think, 69 or 70 healthcare workers, nurses who were in a hospital, a medical setting, and there was a Delta outbreak. And what was interesting, informative was that they were all double vaccinated.

But what we also found when we looked at the research is that these nurses went on to spread the virus to each other, and they did the genetic testing to verify this. That the variant that was spread in that facility came from them. What we found was that the nurses spread to each other accumulated massive viral load in their oral nasal passages. But importantly, the authors concluded there was a 251-fold higher load in these nurses than when they looked at a similar cohort from March 2020 in the alpha strain unvaccinated. So it raised a lot of questions.

And I believe post that publication in The Lancet, the CDC’s director came onto the… There was a breaking news, live broadcast from Dr. Walensky, that study plus there was an outbreak in Barnstable, Massachusetts, where, I think it was 400 to 500 persons in this gathering. And the finding was that 74, 75 percent of them became infected with the Delta, but they were all double vaccinated. That was the issue. And the CDC came out right away to tell the public that double vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks.

So it is really confusing for the public because the public is following along the guidance, but the guidance at times is making no sense because you told me I need a shot, then you said, “No, no, you need two shots.”

Then you told me after that that I need to put back on the mask, and I still need to social distance, and I need it to go into facilities. Now you’re telling me I need a third shot. In Israel, they are going gangbusters with a third booster. And even the data is showing that the Delta is breaking through the third. Now Israel is reporting in the news, it’s prepping the population for a fourth. And in the United States and Canada, talking about boosters also.

So it means in layman terms, if I could say it, the vaccine has failed against Delta. That it’s not working. And it makes sense because the spike, the immune responses towards, is not the initial spike. And that’s what the public has not been informed. So what we are setting people up with and potentially our children is, you are telling me, because I’ve seen the studies, that…

Pfizer is an example. We have studies that have shown that the antibody levels drop 40 percent a month. What does that mean in layman terms? That means that after three months, you have none. So that’s why they’re saying from four to five months, we want you to get this booster.

Well, we’ve never been in a situation globally when I got my shots or you as children or your parents or whomever, it was shots for life. You get your one shot or your initial booster right there as a child. We don’t [keep] boosting people. So right now you’ve asked the world to take three shots in eight months. Israel is going to a fourth. We’ve never done this. We do not know how the immune system is going to react to so much boosting. Why? Because the vaccine developers did not study it. And that’s the key.

We would not be asking these questions or be so concerned if Pfizer and Moderna and whomever had done the proper follow-up. The duration of a vaccine takes 10 to 12 to 15 years, but you brought a vaccine to us in three to four months. It would be reckless and dangerous as some of these public health officials are to tell the public that it is safe. They don’t know. They don’t know it’s safe. How could they know? They’ve not followed it up properly. And then there’s this talk that we are the experiment, and they’re going to collect this data now during the vaccination period.

From my point of view, this has been done wrong. And I mean, more importantly, back to your initial question of natural immunity, if there are so many questions, why have you not recognized natural immunity? Why didn’t you not start the vaccine rollout where you test people serologically or T-cell immunity testing to decide whether they have some immunity in the first place.

And then if you do, you make that decision that you’re not a candidate for the vaccine. Why has this been a carte blanche into across the board vaccination of the entire world when the vaccine is now having so many questions? And if people were COVID recovered, why have you not recognized that?

I have a colleague Dr. Steven Pelech in Canada, and his group are doing research on vaccines. I can’t recall the name of his company, but I can tell you he has a publication, it’s actually in my Brownstone publication, where they looked at the population in Vancouver, in British Columbia, and they did a sample of the population. And they found that there was an immune response of at about 90 percent in the population. This is even before the vaccine rollout. This was last year. Why has the response not looked at people’s existing immunity?

We know that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a coronavirus. We know that it’s similar to prior common cold coronaviruses. We know this. They are coronaviruses also. We know that persons who’ve recovered from SARS-1 in 2003, and there’s cross protection, cross reactivity. We have those studies published in nature and high-level journals.

There are people who just will not be infected with COVID. They just can’t be. And that’s just the way it is. They are people who come already with cross protection, cross immunity. They will never be infected with COVID—SARS-CoV-2. But the CDC, Jan, they just don’t recognize. It’s not even that they discount it. They refuse to recognize it. And I think it has us now in a quandary because you are taking back to that nurse, you are taking someone who’s likely immune, and she is probably the safest person to her patients.

And I think this is the thing that the public needs to understand. Just before the vaccine came out from around fall of 2020 and just the beginning before the first shot, the news media, these people went around telling everyone, “Oh, look, we have this study here that shows that your antibodies are waning because you got exposed, you recovered from the thing. But now we check your blood a few months after, and we see that your antibodies have waned. So you are losing immunity. So all of you people out there who are saying natural immunity is long-lasting, look, we are showing you the antibodies are waning. So you’re losing immunity.”

They knew this basic immunology. They knew that as part of the immune response, antibodies are just one part, but the important part is the cellular immunity, as part of the cellular component of your immune response. And we are talking about B cells and T cells. And the B cells are the ones that produce the antibodies in future exposure, and your T-cell immunity, the T cells are natural killer cells.

We have natural killer cells, CD8+, that will clear out a virus on its own. It needs nothing else to help it. But we know that it is expected that your antibody levels will wane across time, and it will plateau, but it’s not going away. It becomes quiescent and dormant. You are not losing your immunity when you are naturally exposed. Your antibody levels must wane.

But there’s immunological memory, and when you get re-exposed again, those antibodies will be tuned out again by the B cells. We have long-lived bone marrow plasma cells that they differentiate, and we have studies that show that they actually become better with time. They adjust. They become much more reactive even to the variants.

So we know that your cellular immunity is what is long-lasting. The CDC, on its own website, if you check, it says, if you had chicken pox, you don’t need a vaccine. It also says, if you had measles, mumps, or rubella, you don’t need to get a vaccine because they know natural immunity is set. You do not take Susie for a shot after she’s recovered from measles because she has bulletproof immunity for the rest of her life.

I argue, and I know many doctors and scientists know this. They are just constrained from talking because of the targeting and loss of career, etc., and being smeared in the media or canceled. And a very, very cogent argument could be made now that there’s the potential that the vaccinated person is spreading, transmitting virus to the vulnerable unvaccinated. And again, we need these studies to be done. But the right parties, like the NIH and CDC, will not do it. We are looking at the data and trying to make the data tell a story. The story is there.

We have people in the past, like scientists, who studied the issue of… It’s a very interesting, not concept, they actually studied this and published it in PLOS in 2015. The lead author was Read. And what they did was, it was very fascinating, and our argument today is potentially, we could be looking at the same situation here.

And that is a virologist’s greatest nightmare, which is that the vaccine itself, because it’s a suboptimal leaky vaccine… These vaccines are leaky. A leaky vaccine is a vaccine that does not prevent infection. It does not prevent transmission. And all it does pretty much is moderate or tamp down the symptoms.

So what is happening is the vaccinated person is vaccinated, and the vaccine is doing what it should do, which is, it reduces your symptoms, mild COVID etc. but it does not prevent you from transmitting it or becoming infected, etc. or even severe. So that vaccinated person is potentially becoming an asymptomatic, super spreader. And this study by Read et al. in 2015 surrounded chickens. And I don’t know if you’ve ever read it. Okay. Could I be brief?

Mr. Jekielek: Yeah.

Dr. Alexander: In a quick paragraph, what they did was, people who farm, people who raise chickens for commercial purposes. Chickens have a disease, Marek’s, the disease virus that impacts them. And of course it causes loss to those who raise massive amounts of chickens for commercial purposes. Researchers brought a vaccine to market for chicken growers, and the vaccine did not stop transmission, they found out. It did not stop infection. All it did was reduce the symptoms to the chickens, which is exactly what COVID vaccine does today.

And what did they find? Well, Read et al. published a paper on this Marek’s disease, and they showed that when they modeled it out, and they did some experiments, I think the key one to COVID today, I’ve just written something and submitted it with some other researchers, is that they showed that the vaccinated chickens spread the virus to the unvaccinated chickens. They harbored massive amounts of load, the vaccinated chickens, and particularly they spread hotter strains. So they drove the development. The vaccination apparently drove the development of more lethal strains to the unvaccinated sentinel chickens.

So you have people like Geert Vanden Bossche, Mike Yeadon, Robert Malone, etc., they are laying out explanations as to the challenges that could happen with this vaccine based on what we are seeing today. It appears that what has happened in those chickens is actually happening today because we do have a leaky vaccine. No one is arguing that, not even the CDC.

The vaccine is imperfect. It does not stop you from becoming infected or transmitting it. The vaccine developers did not do the studies for the proper duration. So they cannot tell you today, no one can, no CDC official, no NIH, no vaccine developer, that these vaccines are safe and effective. They cannot. And definitely, they cannot say it’s safe because we do not have the data, the long-term data. We do not know.

And we also have two cases of myocarditis, etc. Guillain-Barré happening, some blood clots, CVST, in young people who’ve taken these vaccines. So the vaccine is having an adverse effect. The CDC’s own VAERS database, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, right now lists close to 20,000 deaths in the United States—just the United States. And these deaths, if you look at the curve, the death curve, it happens one to two days post-vaccine, about 50 percent of them. About 80 percent would’ve accumulated by about the seventh day post-vaccine. And researchers have concluded that about 85 percent of the deaths are linked directly to the vaccine.

And you apply Bradford-Hill’s causality model to that, you could pretty much walk away realizing that the vaccine is the cause. Could we have a temporal relationship? We have a biological plausibility because the vaccine is introducing into you the genetic material to drive your body to produce a spike protein. It is the spike protein on the ball of the virus that is the dangerous part of this virus from the disease itself, natural infection.

So I would say it this way. I want a medication or the vaccine to work. But if it is not, and if it is potentially harmful and is actually causing harm, we have to examine this. It can’t be like what we did with the lockdowns, as an example. We reacted to the devastation from the lockdowns by locking down harder and longer. They put people into more distress and duress. So when information is accumulating to see that there’s a problem here, we don’t react by doing more of it. That makes no sense to me. And that’s the issue.

Mr. Jekielek: So speaking of kind of doubling down on questionable policy-

Dr. Alexander: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: … we’re having these new, I suppose, seasonal spikes in coronavirus infections and so forth. And there’s even some discussion, especially in some European countries, of going back to lockdowns.

Dr. Alexander: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: And clearly this isn’t something you’d be a supporter of. What are your thoughts here?

Dr. Alexander: Like I saw on the news, like Austria, they were thinking now about shifting back into lockdown. There was another country I saw, they’re tracking their population, that the unvaccinated, if you do not get vaccinated, we’re going to lock you down. Well, I think that is outrageous because first of all, we looked at the entire body of evidence on lockdowns. We probably put together about 115 studies and publications that showed the lockdowns…

First of all, the lockdowns just did not work. We can’t find any location in this world from February 2020 to today still, where you can show that the lockdowns had a beneficial effect in reducing transmission or death even. We can’t find. In fact, we have studies that show us that the lockdowns drove those restrictive policies with school closures, drove tremendous pain, in fact, drove transmission and death. So the question is-

Mr. Jekielek: Let me stop you here. I know you are saying… So you’re telling me through a 150-

Dr. Alexander: 15.

Mr. Jekielek: … The 115 examples that you looked at, you can’t find a single example where lockdowns were actually helpful in stopping the spread and doing what they were supposed to do.

Dr. Alexander: No, absolutely none. In fact, the general tenet is that in most locations where lockdowns were even done, if you look at the epidemic curves, the infections were coming down without the lockdowns. The lockdowns were actually implemented after the infections had come down. So it’s an eye-opening thing. It’s like the mask mandates. We’ve published also, we looked at mask mandates, and we cannot find one country.

We looked at every country and every state or county in the United States, as an example, internally, where mask mandates were implemented, and we cannot find one example where a mask mandate stopped the transmission, reduced it, or stopped death. In fact, when you look at all of the curves, all of them showed that infections went up after the implementations of mask mandates.

So in other words, all of these policies between the lockdowns, the school closures, the mask mandates, they were… I don’t want to use the word illogical, but they were very unscientific and unsound because they did not result in what it was intended to accomplish.

And now if we are having a situation with Delta and we know that Delta has turned out to be the mildest of all of the variants in terms of lethality, etc., we know it’s infectious, nobody has argued that, but the virus is behaving like how a virus normally behaves—Muller’s ratchet.

As time goes on, the virus mutates downwards. It’s becoming more infectious, contagious because it is winding down, and you are putting a lot of pressure on it. It has to find a way to evade the steps you are taking on it because it wants to find a way to infect you, use your cellular metabolic machinery to transmit itself. A virus does just one thing, replicate via you, via me. So it will find every avenue it could find to promote that.

And the issue is this. The more you lock a society down, you achieve a few things. One, there’s nothing much really to emerge from after if you really impose a strict lockdown, like what we are seeing in places like Australia. You’re destroying your society. But two, you are preventing the population from inching closer, closer to population-level herd immunity because the people cannot be exposed, they cannot become immune.

So you are putting yourself in a dangerous situation whenever you reopen. Every time you reopen, there will be a spike in infection, and then you’re going to lock down again. You are thinking that you’re going to vaccinate yourself out of this. And that is a huge problem because if you brought me a sterilizing vaccine that was sterilizing the virus, proper, full neutralizing antibodies, and we knew that if we vaccinated the population fully, we would stop this virus and extract, but you brought a suboptimal vaccine.

So those countries that were waiting on the vaccine, they are now faced with a leaky vaccine. So they have locked their societies down. This is what has happened—waiting. They have prevented their populations, like Australia, from getting to herd immunity, from generating a lot of natural immunity within the population, waiting for the vaccine. Now the vaccine has come, but the vaccine is imperfect. In fact, the vaccine is leaky. It’s allowing those who get vaccinated to become infected again and potentially get ill and even die.

My philosophy from day one was in line… I worked with Dr. Scott Atlas. I followed what the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Gupta, Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, brilliant individuals, I think the top epidemiologists in the world… I think Scott Atlas on this issue was probably the most prescient informed individual because he brought the balance, and I learned a lot from him with my short stint in the administration.

His approach was simple. And I’ve endorsed it, and I expose it. And I expose it today, and I turn to countries that want to lockdown again. Why don’t you strongly, properly protect the vulnerable in your society? First, nothing else must work, or you do nothing else unless you do that. If that’s the only thing you do, it’ll be successful, but do it properly. We have failed in the West, in the United States and in Canada.

For example, about 80 percent of the persons who died in Canada were in nursing homes. We failed. We failed to protect the vulnerable. We did it backside, wrong sided. We locked down the healthy and the well in the society, the ones who were more able to cope with it and handle the virus. And we failed at the same time to protect the vulnerable. And that is what went wrong.

So I am saying that, try and look at the Great Barrington Declaration. Look at that focused age risk stratified approach. It makes a lot of sense. And particularly, we knew out of the gate that COVID was amenable to risk stratification. And we also knew that early treatment worked. We have early treatment.

So if you have elderly in a nursing home, and you’re strongly protecting them, and you are allowing the rest of society, the well to live unfettered lives because they are healthy, their immune systems are strong, they could deal with the virus, they could develop natural immunity, get towards population immunity. If the elderly is ever infected, you have early treatment that they can get and be implemented. And they will clear the virus. They will recover. And now they too will be naturally immune.

The problem is we chose to tie the hands of physicians across the world, particularly in places like Canada and the United States, and prevented them from prescribing—prevented them from applying early treatment.

And many, many thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly because there’s good research that shows that early outpatient treatment, ambulatory treatment given in that first two-week window, properly dosed, properly timed can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death by about 85 to 90 percent. That’s the key. You want to keep the person, the elderly high risk person in their home.

You don’t want them going to the hospital. From the time you touch the emergency room door, your 28-day mortality risk skyrockets to about 38 percent. So you want to keep them from getting there, and you can do that with early treatment. So I’m saying, why don’t you strongly, for the first time, protect your high risk people properly, allow the rest of society to breathe and to live normally, let them live, let them [be] free, let them get natural exposure harmlessly?

I’m not talking about deliberate infection. We’ve always meant harmless as part of natural living— particularly children. Children are in the best situation to handle Delta. That would be like, they would probably have no symptoms or very mild, like the common cold even. They would be immune for life. We have seen that natural immunity exposure is one and done. We cannot find one case.

We’ve looked at the science. Dr. McCullough with myself, we cannot find one case, properly distanced, 90 days apart, bona fide infection based on two tests that you could say, “Well, this person actually…” Most of the time anyone raises a case, we could go back and look at the PCR testing. We could look at the cycle count threshold and say, “Well, you have a cycle, the test. We could show you there was problems in interpretation of the testing results.”

So, the reality is that low risk people are in the best situation if you allow them to live naturally, like how we do normally, and deal with it with their immune systems, they have very strong, natural innate immune systems, too, than locking them down. You’re suffering them. You’re killing your economy. The virus isn’t going nowhere. It’s going to mutate more. It’s going to become more infectious and wait for you.

So you will be in a never-ending cycle of lockdowns, reopen, lockdown, reopen. And if you thought that the vaccine was your way out, which is what they did, and I understand that, but the vaccine is showing us, look at Israel, look at UK, look at Iceland, look at Seychelles, look at Gibraltar, look at United States, the vaccine is showing us that the double vaccinated are becoming reinfected. So what are you going to do then?

You’re going to enter a booster program every four to five months. Where’s the evidence that that is going to work? We might end up killing a bunch of people. We might end up… I mean, it’s not that I want to be inflammatory. I’m saying it how I’m thinking about it. We have never vaccinated people and boosted them multiple times a year. And we don’t know what is going to happen because the vaccine developers didn’t study it.

Had they studied this for 10, 15 years as they should have and brought us the safety data and said, “Look, we looked at this for 15 years, and we give boosters every six months because the vaccine was failing.” But once you boost, everybody’s fine. They’ll just get a boost, and they go on with life, as ridiculous as that is because you don’t want that. But let’s say you did that. But you don’t even have that data to give me to look at, yet we are seeing deaths accumulate in the United States. We have the EudraVigilance surveillance system that shows 30,000 deaths due to the vaccine and about two million adverse events.

So it is real. They are serious consequences to taking a simple drug. When you take a medication normally that you just pop at home sometimes, you need to understand there’s a risk. There’s risk with any medication, with any medical device or vaccine, just the device itself.

Mr. Jekielek: So another thing I wanted to cover with you before we move on is, you said that every study that you’ve looked at that related to lockdowns spoke to their ineffectiveness, right, if I understood that correctly?

Dr. Alexander: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, the sort of the elephant in the room is the numbers coming out of China. Ostensibly, that is the case that got people interested in lockdowns in the first place, right, so a few deaths, according to their official statistics.

Dr. Alexander: I would ask, well, where’s the data? According to who? Based on what? Where is the publication for us to examine it? That’s very important… We just have something out in the press. That is not a scientific publication. That has not gone through any peer review. It has gotten  no scientific scrutiny. So we can’t put any credit to it.

Again, this is not about wanting things to fail. This is always about wanting things to succeed and if we could find steps and policies that could help. But look at the situation today. We’ve had all of these nations that have locked down, and we now have a lot of literature that has accumulated to show us that the lockdowns provided no benefit, in fact, just horrible, horrifying stories to the populations and societies that were inflicted by it. I mean, there’s a particular study in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, where they… I’ll give you a specific example, and media doesn’t pay attention to it, but I dug deep down

They separated the thirty highest per capita affluent communities in Toronto based on postal codes—high median incomes versus the thirty lowest. And what we found was, because of the lockdown, the risk of transmission, etc. shifted dramatically to them. This is an example where the lockdowns failed. You actually shift the burden from the locked up cafe-latte affluent class to the poor persons because the poor persons are the ones who have to do the front-facing jobs.

They could not shield. They could not stay home and protect themselves like the more affluent persons who could have worked remotely, who could have easily, because most of them are in supervisory, management positions, pivoted to this remote situation. They could have all gotten remote learning for their children. They could have afforded laptops, webcams, pod schooling, all sorts of different things. They could have gotten their children extra tutors.

The poor persons in society suffered from the lockdowns dramatically. There are poor children in America, millions who have no breakfast. They eat no dinner. And the only meal they get is in that school environment. When you lock down your society and you close schools, you suffer poor children. They suffered poor children. Children normally get their ears tested, their eyes tested for the first time only in a school setting.

Many poor parents who were etching out a living silently, very respectively, to themselves, they were fleshed out into the open by the lockdowns and the school closures because Johnny and Susie had a very rudimentary little computer at home, did not have a laptop with a sophisticated webcam, and had no facilities to accommodate homeschooling with all of the lockdowns.

All of a sudden, their parents, who had low-paying jobs, front-facing, mother had to come home because you’re locking down. Now they’re going to remote. Father has just been laid off because the businesses are closed because you locked down. And now they have Johnny and Susie have no laptop or camera. They have to now go to the school and tell the school or go to the system and say, “We don’t have the infrastructure for Johnny.”

Now Johnny was making his way privately. No one knew Johnny’s business. And Johnny might have gone on to become a doctor or a lawyer and somebody very prominent. And people could be very humble, and you’re very private. And you don’t want society to know my situation as I struggle through my life because I will make something of myself.

Now you have Johnny have to cope with a system now knows his financial situation and often other children, too. And children, not deliberately, but they could also be mean to each other. And children have suffered psychologically devastatingly from this. It’s not just a money thing.

It is an emotional trauma that some estimates say that it probably will take us 10 to 20 years for our children to recover psychologically and even economically from what we’ve done. There’s no good data out there to show that any of these policies were successful. And if they are saying that China’s policy was successful, we need to see the data. It’s not good enough to get some news organization to print that. Show us the data. Show us what worked.

[Narration/Mr. Jekielek]: In part two of this exclusive interview, Dr. Paul Alexander shares the incredible story of how he was recruited into the Trump administration as a Canadian and at a time when the U.S.-Canada border was completely shot.

[Narration/Dr. Alexander]: It’s like a movie, a small island boy, black suburban vehicle, I sat on in it.

[Narration/Mr. Jekielek]: And the bureaucratic backlash he faced, especially after he opposed school closures and advocated for early outpatient treatment.

[Narration/Dr. Alexander]: They are going to pick lines you’ve written, and they’re going to create a story around that line. They take your life and they try to burn you down.

[Narration/Mr. Jekielek]: And he breaks down why he believes mandating COVID vaccines for children is unethical, unscientific, and dangerous.

[Narration/Dr. Alexander]: These people have been absolved from liability. If you say these vaccines are safe for my children, remove the liability protection.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Watch part two of this interview with Dr. Paul Alexander here. 

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

Follow EpochTV on social media:


Read More