search icon
Live chat

Genetic COVID Vaccines May Damage Children’s Innate Immunity—Dr. Paul Alexander

“The data was so profound that the UK decided to stop reporting at the end of March. … The infection rates in vaccinated persons, particularly after the second and third dose, were skyrocketing,” said Dr. Paul Alexander, an expert in evidence-based medicine, research methodology, and clinical epidemiology. He served in the Trump administration as a COVID policy adviser.

The genetic vaccines for COVID-19 are ineffective against Omicron and newer variants, Dr. Alexander says. Furthermore, data increasingly suggests that vaccinated and boosted individuals are more likely to be infected by COVID-19 than unvaccinated individuals. Why would that be the case?

Dr. Alexander says he’s also becoming increasingly concerned about how the genetic COVID-19 vaccines not only have risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and other documented side effects, but may also damage the innate immunity that children have.

In this episode, Dr. Alexander breaks down the concept of innate immunity, something different from the commonly heard term “natural immunity” that results from prior COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Alexander argues our vaccination policies may actually be subverting this innate defense system that children have—against not just COVID-19, but other pathogens.

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

* Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List“.


Jan Jekielek:

Dr. Paul Alexander, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Paul Alexander:

Thank you very much for having me again. Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek:

There has been a lot of discussion and a lot of controversy about the concept of natural immunity in the context of COVID.

Dr. Alexander:


Mr. Jekielek:

But there’s another kind of immunity that’s incredibly important—innate immunity, which is something that’s almost never talked about. So let’s start there. What is it? Why is it important? What is happening right now?

Dr. Alexander:

Again, thank you very much, Jan. I want to thank the Epoch Times for the tremendous work they have done over these last two years with the information you gave out about COVID. I also want to say to Dr. Zelenko’s wife, Rinat, that I express my condolences along with everyone else in the COVID world of research. We built on Dr. Zelenko’s work with his Zelenko protocol for early treatment. He is a giant that will be missed.

To answer that question, first of all, I want to set the scene and let you know that I’m in a lot of discussions everyday. All of us, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Tenenbaum, Dr. Vanden Bossche and I deal with the immunology, the virology, and the vaccinology every day. What I’ve come to understand and what is critical is that the vaccine manufacturers, the CDC, the NIH, and the FDA are making a mistake when they deal with this virus today by disregarding the interplay and the ecosystem between the virus and the host.

Dr. Vanden Bossche actually explains this eloquently. To end a pandemic, you need to get to  herd immunity. For you to get to a herd immunity, you need to cut the chain of transmission. If the chain of transmission is not cut, you will never ever get to population-level herd immunity. To do that, you need to have sterilizing immunity. You must bring out a vaccine that sterilizes the virus. By that we mean that it prevents infection in the host, it prevents replication, and it prevents transmission. Transmission is key.

So right now, this vaccine produces non-neutralizing, non-sterilizing antibodies. So what does that mean? That means that it does not stop transmission, and it does not eliminate the virus. So in other words, right now, we are vaccinating with this particular mRNA vaccine based on the initial Wuhan strain of the virus from March, April 2020. That is what’s inside that vaccine. But it’s been a year now this strain has been gone. We’ve gone through Delta, and we’ve gone through all of the sub variants of Omicron so far. Now we have the BA.4 and BA.5. variants.

In other words, the vaccinal antibodies, the antibodies induced by the vaccine do not hit the Omicron spike. That is why you have viral immune escape. And that is why people who are vaccinated are becoming infected. More so, we now understand, with some research by Nouara Yahi and others, that the non-neutralizing antibodies bind to the spike. There’s a binding between the two. The problem is that in that binding, the virus is actually becoming more infectious, and infecting the vaccinated person. That is where the data began to emerge.

There was data from around July, August of 2021, out of Barnstable, Massachusetts, for about 400 people who were double vaccinated. Delta was predominant at that point, but 75 to 80 per cent became infected. That particular event prompted the Director of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky, to come to the microphone and tell people who were double vaccinated to put on a mask. They began to realize that vaccinated people were getting infected and actually were prone to transmit.

At that same time, there was a very important study by Chau et al. out of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. That study looked at double vaccinated nurses who were part of a Delta outbreak. Those nurses became infected. They were locked down, but they became infected in that institution. They transmitted to each other. The amount of viral load in their nasopharyngeal passage was about 251 times that of another particular variant earlier in the pandemic. So it demonstrated to us that double vaccinated people were at risk of being infected, and were at risk of harboring massive pathogen in the nasopharyngeal passage, the oral cavity, as well as transmitting.

In that study, plus one by Shitrit in Israel, and one by Hetemaki of Finland, similar nosocomial outbreaks show that vaccinated nurses were becoming infected. What was alarming too is they were fully PPE’d. They had the masks, the gowns, the shields, everything, and yet they transmitted. So those studies showed us a host of things, which is that there was really no difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated person. The studies began to open our eyes that something was wrong in the statement by the CDC and the NIH that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. When we looked at the data out of the UK, and we looked at the data of Scotland, we began to realize it is not a pandemic of the unvaccinated. In fact, there was actually no difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated from those COVID injections.

Mr. Jekielek:

I’m going to jump in. At that time there was some sort of effect on adverse outcomes like mortality and severe infection. Is that right?

Dr. Alexander:

Yes. That was reported. The reality is we were getting some indications of that, particularly from nursing homes with elderly at-risk persons. The death rate began to decline. But there’s a lot of controversy over that too, Jan. Simply because these vaccines, when they were developed by the Pfizer and  Moderna were never designed to deal with death, hospitalization, ICU, or severe symptoms. They only dealt with reducing mild symptoms of COVID, and that has always been our contention. That when CDC, NIH, or FDA people came to the microphone and said, “The vaccine is safe and effective.” We always looked at each other and said, “Where’s the data, because the trials never showed that.”

That’s the other thing. The trials were built around the reduction of mild COVID symptoms. That is what the public didn’t understand. They mention efficacy, that the vaccine is efficacious. Efficacious on what? You reduced mild COVID symptoms, you reduced my cough? You reduced what? Three coughs, seven coughs? That’s not important the population. They want to know, “Does this vaccine reduce my risk of death, reduce my risk of hospitalization, and reduce severe outcomes?”

Let’s segue into the situation with innate immunity. We have a situation today where the Omicron sub variants, BA.4, BA.5, are highly infectious. The vaccinated person is getting infected. As I was trying to explain earlier, there is research that shows when you get vaccinated, the vaccinal antibodies bind to the spike, which is the target antigen. But in that binding, we have a situation that is called EDEI, antibody-dependent enhancement of infection, which is that the host or the vaccinated person is more prone to become infected. That’s what we are seeing.

Just take a look at the UK data and the Scottish data. The data was so profound that the UK decided to stop reporting at the end of March, and Scotland stopped in April. Because the data was showing that the infection rates in the vaccinated people, particularly after the second and third dose, were skyrocketing. This is a problem. The vaccine right now causes infection in the vaccinated, but it does seem to protect against severe illness in the lower lung.

Some experts are arguing now that illness could soon be overcome. But we could be facing a situation where we would potentially have a very infectious variant emerge that is also very violent, lethal, and cause a lot of severe outcomes and death. Strangely enough, this is happening all of a sudden in some countries. I have already been reading some reports from various nations that people who are becoming infected right now are showing up with more severe symptoms. So it makes us wonder, what has happened here? Is what Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche said now materializing?

So what’s the bottom line? I do want to get into the innate immunity. But the bottom line is that these vaccines are not needed. We had early drug treatment. We quickly knew about vitamin D, and its benefits in dramatically reducing mortality. We knew about all of the steps that we could take in a normal epidemiological outbreak response, and even a pandemic response. Once we properly protected the elderly and the vulnerable in our society, we could allow the rest of the low-risk in this society to live normal lives and have their normal daily living. This whole situation  caused a lot of angst to a lot of people, to the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration, and to myself.

Basically, we were seeing that you could allow the healthy people to live normal lives, which is what we’ve always done. They would be exposed to the virus naturally and harmlessly, not deliberately, just as part of their normal lives. They would be exposed. Those who became infected, their immune systems would deal with it. They would develop an immunity, an immune response. They would recover. Their immune response would actually protect the vulnerable. Then, you bring everybody back together again in the future. You find a way to keep the vulnerable away as much as you can. And I’m not talking about locking people away in a room, somewhere in a dungeon.

You make reasonable decisions in your private homes, or even in the nursing homes. You protect them. You allow the healthy in society confront the pathogen. Then, they develop a robust immune response that will protect them in the future, as we go on. But that’s not what we did. We actually did it backwards. We failed to protect the vulnerable, while we locked down the healthy. It has been two-and-a-half years. When we look at all of the research today, Jan, we can see there is no setting, location, or country where any COVID lockdown was successful in any measure to curb transmission or to reduce death. None. Herby et al. at Johns Hopkins University wrote a review a couple months ago, basically saying what we had already publishing in AIER (American Institute for Economic Research.) I had also published at the Brownstone Institute where we looked at all of the evidence showing that all of the lockdowns failed. All of them. And Herby et al. at John Hopkins did the same.

Mr. Jekielek:

Ostensibly, in Australia and New Zealand, they did succeed in curbing transmission.

Dr. Alexander:

Okay. Let’s say we are in this room in this building. Let’s say we are here, and we get word that there’s a serious pathogen coming to this area and it’s right outside. So we all run around quickly, we seal the windows, we close the doors and we say, “You know what? We can’t do anything else. We’re not going outside. We don’t want it to come in, so we’re going to lock down. We have locked ourselves down in here. Okay, for how long? Because we could conceivably keep that pathogen out of this room, and none of us in the room will get infected. But, for how long?” At some point, you are going to have to emerge. Depending on how long you lock this room down for, you might cause a lot of disaster in your life. You might not have a family, or have nothing to emerge to after that.

Theoretically, you could lock a country down. But realistically, you can’t. Who could really lock  down a country with borders? There are places that have tried; Australia, New Zealand, China. But look at what is happening. Every time they try to open up, their cases spike and they lock back down again. They are making their populations suffer. People jump out of buildings. Business owners in America have committed suicide because of the lockdowns. They closed their business and they gave up. We have many children across America who have ended their lives. They committed suicide, because of school closures from the lockdown. So there is a cost, and this is the cost we are talking about.

Yes, you could do it. You could tape everything up. But you would have no economy to emerge to. You would have destroyed the social fabric your society. People would take drastic steps. They could not stay in that type of situation for too long. But more importantly, here is what happens when we put pressure on the pathogen. I wouldn’t say the pathogen, a virus, is actually a living entity. A virus is really a clump of genetic material packaged in a viral envelope. But it wants to reproduce, right? It has to do things to go forward. It wants to spread its genetic material. That is its principle goal. It does that by infecting me, and using my cellular metabolic machinery to replicate itself.

So, if I put pressure on to prevent it from doing that, it will respond to that pressure. It will respond to the steps that you are taking to prevent it, and it will evolve. We underestimated the capacity of this virus to evolve and adapt to the pressures that we placed on it. For example, at present, the vaccinal antibodies are non-neutralizing. That means they do not eliminate the viruses and stop infection. But, at the same time, you are putting pressure on the virus. It’s almost like you’re poking it, you’re pushing it, but you’re not destroying it. Had Moderna and Pfizer brought out a vaccine that was sterilizing, and eliminated the virus, we would not be having these discussions. This whole pandemic would have been over by February of 2021. The minute they brought out those vaccines the pandemic would have been over, because they would have brought out a proper vaccine that totally eliminated the virus. But these vaccines do not eliminate the virus.

They introduced a vaccine that out of the gate was suboptimal. And quickly, with the mutations and the evolution of the virus, we had a situation where the content of the vaccine was not matching the virus. They didn’t understand that vaccinated inside a pandemic, is very different than vaccinated outside of a pandemic. Because inside of a pandemic, you are confronted with the infectious pressure from the pathogen. The pathogen is constantly trying to infect the population. So, that pressure from the pathogen on the population is never ending. But the vaccine that you administered is suboptimal, and it does not neutralize this virus.

Moreover, the vaccinal antibodies need about two to three weeks after the shot to develop properly, and to gain their functional capacity. During that two to three week period, you have people who are vaccinated within a pandemic, with the virus circulating. They have no protection. We also know that the immune system almost falls flat immediately post-vaccine for about two weeks while the immune system builds and develops. So, you have a situation where you have this virus pressing down on the population while the immune response is mounting, but the mounting immune response is suboptimal. It is not enough to eliminate the virus. The response is just enough to keep poking it and pushing it. You’re putting pressure on it.

This virus in the environment has billions and trillions of copies. There are hardier, fitter, more infectious variants. Those stronger variants are the ones that are responding to this suboptimal pressure. Remember, it’s not a sterilizing vaccine. It’s a non-neutralizing, non-sterilizing vaccine. The manufacturers told us this, and the CDC told us this. It doesn’t stop transmission. The strongest variants will overcome that suboptimal pressure and infect you, and infect the population. Beyond that, we have now found out that the vaccinal antibodies actually bind to the viruses, to the spike antigen. With that binding, with that union, it causes the virus to be more infectious.

Now the virus itself is more infectious. That’s the problem. The content of the vaccine was geared to the Wuhan strain of COVID. Your body, your cells will build antibodies to the Wuhan strain of the virus. But what is predominantly circulating now is Omicron with a multitude of mutations on the spike, 15 or 20. The current vaccinal antibody cannot hit that Omicron spike. It cannot even recognize it. That is a problem. In other words, if you keep vaccinating with these vaccines, you will never ever stop this pandemic. This pandemic can go on for a hundred years. It will never end. What we are seeing is infectious variant after infectious variant. The new variants are more infectious. Each version that’s coming out is more infectious. It’s a terrible situation.

Mr. Jekielek:

You talked about these hardy variants that are the ones that can overcome this suboptimal immune response.

Dr. Alexander:

Yes, it’s from immune pressure, and they become more infectious.

Mr. Jekielek:

How do they become more infectious?

Dr. Alexander:

First of all, in our environment, there is so much virus. There are variants in the environment from me and everybody else. Everybody’s generating variants. In those variants, the predominant one will become the one that has the greatest number. They are the hardiest and the fittest. They can overcome the suboptimal vaccine, actually get around it, and infect the vaccinated person. Those have demonstrated that ability. They are hardier. Now they are totally resistant to the antibodies. They resist the antibodies completely. Those are selected because they are the hardiest. These predominant ones will now be selected to move forward. They are going to become the new dominant variant. We had that with Omicron. And now we’ve seen this subvariant, or clade, as we also call it, happening.

In the binding that takes place with the existing vaccinal antibodies, there’s a union between the antibody and the receptor binding domain on the spike. The spike will normally interact with the AS2 receptor that sits on the surface of your cells to infect you. So this vaccine antibody will bind to that binding domain and block it. So now the spike, that portion that normally meets up with the AS2 receptor to infect your cells, is blocked by the antibodies. So now the spike cannot interact with the AS2 receptor to infect your cells, and the viral contents can’t get inside of the cells and infect them.

Mr. Jekielek:

So that’s the optimal situation.

Dr. Alexander:

That’s the optimal situation.

Mr. Jekielek:

But that is not what is happening.

Dr. Alexander:

That is not what is happening. Now, we can talk about innate immunity. What is happening is that after you get your vaccine, the vaccine antibodies interact with a binding domain on the spike. You would think that it would prevent the infection at that point of the virus. But what we are seeing is a condition called antibody-dependent enhancement of infection. What is it doing? Research by Yahi et al. is showing us that the virus itself becomes much more infectious.

The antibodies are enhancing the ability of this virus now to infect the host. It causes the host to be infected. As to the exact mechanism that makes that happen, they are working that out. Right now, the research we are looking at has largely been in vitro. But in the in vitro modeling, it is showing us what is happening. Because all of a sudden, we are seeing all of these vaccinated people becoming infected. And it should not be happening.

Mr. Jekielek:

You mentioned there is a connection to innate immunity. What is innate immunity? I know that everything you have talked about fits in with this. Please help us understand.

Dr. Alexander:

I am speaking with my background in evidence-based medicine and epidemiology. I’m not a classical immunologist or virologist. Because of COVID, in the last two-and-a-half years, the people that I work with, colleagues at the technical level, have become very good friends—Dr.Vanden Bossche, Dr. Yin, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Risch, and Dr.Howard Tenenbaum. What you hear about in the news, and what we wrote about so voraciously was natural immunity and natural acquired adaptive immunity.

But there is a compartment of the immune system that is called innate immunity. Innate because of the fact it is what you are born with. Let me then pivot straight to young people; infants, young children, and teenagers. The innate immune system is the first line of defense. It is composed of innate antibodies, just like the antibodies in natural immunity. Those are tuned out by the memory B cells. The innate antibodies are induced by the B-1 cells of the innate immune system. So it’s composed of the innate antibodies and what we also call the innate NK cells, natural killer cells.

Their name is basically what they do. They kill any infected cell, or any foreign cell inside the body. There are also other compartments and other cellular components, but these two are very critical. From a basic point of view, you can see the innate immune system in the surface of our skin, because the surface of our skin has microbes that play a role in defending us, and also in the surface of our eyes, the watery layer of our eyes. The principle innate compartment that we always tend to refer to is the mucosal compartment. The mucosa is that slimy layer that lines your nostrils, all the way to the back of your throat, and all the way down your pharynx, straight down the esophagus, to the stomach. This lining is what we call the mucosal lining, and the lining underneath it has mucosal cells.

In there, there’s an immune response that takes place, principally in our nostrils. For example, with the COVID virus, the virus first lands in your nostrils, and is estimated to hang out for about two to three days. During that time, you have an immunological response. Your innate immune system begins a response at that point. So much so that experts like Dr. Bhakdi said very early on that what was needed here was a nasal vaccine, not an intramuscular vaccine that  systemically delivered an immunological response in your bloodstream, because the virus is in the nostrils.

It has to progress down from the upper respiratory tract down to the lower respiratory tract deep inside the lung before it can even get into the bloodstream, and then to infect tissue. So the immune response is at the level of the mucosa. When children are born, they have maternal antibodies that get passed on from mother to child. Those go away rather quickly, and children then have a window of opportunity to train the innate immune system properly.

Principally, they’re trying to train the innate antibodies and innate NK cells. Those cells of the innate immune system get training by exposure to pathogens. The problem is that children are what we call antigenically naive. They don’t come with prior exposure. They don’t have the years of life where they have been exposed to a host of pathogens in the environment, and therefore have developed immunological memory, responding to them, and recovering. So they need something to be able to cope with the environment. Children come with this innate immune system. It’s the first line of defense for young people, and it is critical.

That is why young children normally do so well against pathogens and are surviving the environment without having had a copious number of years of existence. They have not had exposure to pathogens, yet they bump up against them in the environment and they do well. The innate immune system does not have a memory like the acquired adaptive immune system. It is almost like a surveillance system, like a Praetorian Guard that’s always looking for and dealing with anything that comes. And when the pathogen comes, it will deal with it and vanquish it.

It is very potent and does not need a memory. I’m trying to help explain this to parents too. The innate antibodies are what we call low affinity. They are very potent and broadly effective. They don’t need to be focused on any particular pathogen. They can deal with anything that comes along. The challenge here is that the vaccinal antibodies are what we call high specificity. They have a high affinity for the target antigen, which is a spike. The innate antibodies have low affinity. The innate immune system in children is of benefit to the immunological landscape. The training of the antibodies is okay, because in that period of time in young childhood, once the innate immune antibodies and the innate immune system is trained, it functions.

When a healthy child confronts COVID, the innate antibodies will eliminate the virus and sterilize it. They will prevent infection. They will prevent replication and transmission. And a child probably will be what we call asymptomatic. You would never even know that they bumped up against COVID, because the innate antibodies dealt with it. They are that potent. Some children who are a little older might have a few little symptoms. For a couple of hours they may say their stomach isn’t feeling well. They may run a temperature. They may say they don’t feel like going to school today. Do you know what I mean? Then after that, they recover.

The innate immune system is functionally doing its job. Every time it is trained in that way, every time that child is exposed to that pathogen as they’re getting older, the innate immune system has now benefited from the training and would vanquish it readily and easily. There is also the situation where the innate immune system, once properly trained, plays a role in helping your immune system defend itself from what doesn’t belong to you. Properly trained, the innate immune system will know what belongs to you, and what does not belong to you.

If your innate immune system is not trained and the system goes sideways, you could have devastating autoimmune disease where your immune system attacks you. So, it is absolutely critical that very early on in childhood, the innate immune system and particularly the innate antibodies be allowed this training. What Dr. Vanden Bossche has theorized, and we are working on right now, is the fact that the vaccinal antibodies are highly specific to the target antigen, the spike. The vaccinal antibodies bind to the spike antigen first, and they block the innate antibodies from their functional capacity, which is binding.

It’s a ridiculous situation where you have functional, innate antibodies that can bind and neutralize the virus, and eliminate it in children. But when you vaccinated them, the vaccinal antibodies would target that spike more readily than the innate antibodies. These vaccinal antibodies bind, and block the innate antibodies from binding. You have vaccinal antibodies that are worthless. They do not neutralize the virus, we know that. They are non-neutralizing. Omicron has largely resisted the vaccinal antibodies. You have vaccinal antibodies that are wordless blocking the innate antibodies, which are fully functional and can neutralize the virus and eliminate it. So, then you would have children being unable to eliminate the virus, and they would now become infected.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let me get this straight. Vaccinating very young children causes the opposite response to what you want. You think you’re protecting them, but actually you’re making them more vulnerable. Is that what you’re saying?

Dr. Alexander:

Yes, with these COVID vaccines. We are so disturbed by what is happening.The FDA took a submission from Pfizer and Moderna to approve these vaccines for six month to five-year-old children, besides the ones for six to 11, and then 12 to 17. But let’s just focus on these young kids. The CDC just rubber-stamped it. We just went through that in the second to fourth week of June when they had their meetings.

From a purest point of view, as a research methodologist, biostatistician, epidemiologist, and evidence-based medical professional, when I look at tables 19 and 20 in the June 15th submission that the FDA looked at in their decision making, tables 19 and 20 are very instructive. Even the untrained viewer can see this. You see the CDC and the FDA making decisions on a very small sample size, as little as 10 children in some instances. They are very, very small sample sizes. They started off with about 4,500 children. Somewhere along the line, Pfizer and Moderna displaced about 3000. Then, the numbers even dropped down to a couple hundred.

We have no full accounting as to what happened to those children, and why they were not included in this study and the analysis. We have a small number of events. We have like two events in one arm of the trial, and one event in the other. We know from a scientific point of view, and a methodological point of view that this is a red flag for a high risk of overestimating the treatment effect. We don’t make policy decisions or any kind of decision on two events or three events in a study, two in one arm, one in the other. We look at 95 per cent confidence intervals, and we see they run from China on one side, back to California on the other side of the world, because it’s so broad.

There is so much uncertainty in terms of whether it’s beneficial or not. When you read the submission, you see that at some point they reported that children who got multiple infections of COVID were vaccinated. That’s a red flag. We also read that the children who had the most severe adverse events were vaccinated. So, it just boggles the mind. It stretches the imagination as to how they could have approved these vaccines for little children. We have the data to show that there is no data that FDA and CDC looked at, submitted from Pfizer and Moderna, that would convince any reasonable person that they should have gotten approval for these vaccines for children six months to five years old. The data is just not there.

I will challenge anyone at CDC and anyone at FDA to debate me. Just me. Or Dr. Risch. Or Dr. McCullough. Just explain to us how you could look at tables 19 and 20 in that June 16, 2022 submission and make a decision to vaccinate our children. You’re not even looking at science. What we are seeing is the innate immune system has a window of opportunity to be trained. Soon after the maternal antibodies fade, very young children have that window of opportunity, and it doesn’t last forever.

They need to train the innate immune system. It is their first line of defense. It is my first line of defense. We had our innate immune system trained when we were young. But today, children are confronted with this COVID vaccine. We are trying to tell parents, “Look, this is a risk management decision that you must make for yourselves, that they’re not making for you.” And the risk management decision is this—the CDC’s own data says children have nearly zero risk of severe outcome or death from COVID. That data exists.

We looked at all of the data in Germany. For the entire pandemic, no healthy young child died of COVID. None. Zero. We looked at the data in Sweden, no healthy young child throughout the pandemic has died of COVID. Dr. Marty Makary at Johns Hopkins, his team looked at all of the child deaths that the CDC pegged to COVID. There were roughly 400 in America during the pandemic. Since the pandemic began, 400 young children. They have no evidence in the United States of America that there is one healthy child—and I need to say this again slowly—they have no evidence in the United States of America that there is one healthy child that was infected with COVID and died from COVID. That’s a fact and that is the data.

I challenge anyone to show us any alternative data. Listen, the death of a child is the most devastating and tragic event ever. As a parent, you can never recover from the loss of a child. But the reality is, when we look closely at the data for the children the CDC has said died with a diagnosis of COVID, these children were not well children. They had a lot of illness. Morbid obesity has emerged as a super-loaded risk factor for severe outcomes in COVID, regardless of age. That’s the one risk factor. setting age aside.

Age has remained the principal risk factor for COVID. We know that the people who died were very elderly people, over the age of 80. That’s a fact. Then when you add in comorbidities, that brings the age down. We had people under 80 who died because they were unwell. They had two to three underlying medical conditions. But morbid obesity outstrips strips age, if age falls apart from the models, because obesity on its own is a potent, potent problem.

What am I saying? I’m saying that healthy children, left on their own, because of their almost zero risk of severe outcome or death from COVID, do not need these COVID injections. They never did need these COVID injections. But now we’ve gone a step further. We are actually trying to explain to parents that there is an innate immune compartment of your immune system that we all have that initially needs to be educated and trained. It gets that training by the innate antibodies being exposed to a pathogen.

We are looking at the data in Africa today, and we are seeing Africa is winning. Why? Because a lot of the children and young people were not vaccinated. I know this because I look at the data every day. I could see the vaccination rate by country. The African countries have almost zero vaccine rates. They have not vaccinated their populations. What does that mean? That means that the young children and young people have benefited. Their innate immune system has benefited from the training that it normally needs.

So when Omicron bore down on Africa, these children and young people had their innate immune antibodies and innate immune system trained. So, they were able to deal with Omicron, have immunity, and eliminate the virus. If we damage the innate immune system in children, we are taking the most potent part of the immunological response off the battlefield. We made a mistake, Dr.Vanden Bossche, Dr. McCullough, and myself, all of us. On the one hand, we are fighting this monolith of the devastating COVID response with the catastrophe of the lockdowns, and the failure to use early treatments. We were fighting that and developing the algorithm. We were trying to educate people that the school closures were causing suicides in children. We were talking about natural immunity. I wrote that paper for the Brownstone Institute with 154 pieces of evidence.

Now it’s used informally by the U.S. House of Representatives for information. But we should have educated the public on innate immunity. Because the innate immune compartment is really the first line of defense, and it’s critical for children. Now, we are trying to tell the public. Dr. Vanden Bossche is the global leader on this, and I would say I’m a disciple of his. But I’m trying to explain it based on how I understand it. We are arguing that your child with a functional innate immune system is able to cope with not just COVID, but with all viruses that come its way. It copes with the common cold, coronaviruses, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr syndrome, hepatitis, all of the pathogens, as well as bacterial and fungal infections.

So we have a situation where if you subvert the innate immune system, you are going to hurt healthy children. It’s almost like Johnny is healthy over here with his innate immune system and he’s going through life. Johnny might be 7, 8, or 9-years-old. His innate immune system is being trained and developed. Johnny is going to school. His innate antibodies are being boosted and primed and activated and worked up and taxed and tuned daily, because Johnny’s going to school. Johnny is confronting a pathogenic environment, and it’s doing its thing. His innate immune system is developing, it’s being educated, and it’s being trained.

Now you’re trying to tell me that based on the suboptimal, dysfunctional, corrupted data submitted by Pfizer and Moderna to the CDC and the FDA, rubber-stamped and approved based on two or three events in a study, based on sample size of 10, based on confidence intervals that show ineffectiveness, you are going to vaccinate my child Johnny with a vaccine that runs the risk of subverting Johnny’s functional innate immune system that has been working fine. Johnny has no problems, and now you’re going to subvert him. You’re going to make my Johnny susceptible to a wide range of pathogens that otherwise Johnny would have no problem with. That’s the argument.

Mr. Jekielek:

Why do you think that it’s the entire innate immune system that’s subverted here, not just say with COVID against that binding site? Is this just a possibility? Given that the normal risk is very, very low as you’ve outlined extensively, it just doesn’t make sense to take the risk.

Dr. Alexander:

From what point of view? In the presence of the vaccinal antibodies, the innate antibodies cannot be trained. They cannot function. They lose their capacity to function. There is no training for them.  that’s a very important question and I’ll answer it this way. Again, I don’t pretend to be Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche. A lot of these viruses, influenza, RSV virus, all the coronaviruses have sugars on their surface called glycans. The antibodies in our immune system respond to patterns, not necessarily the one spike on the SARS virus. It looks at all of the glycans and sugars on the surface.

A lot of them share similar patterns on their surface. So, that immune response is not just to the SARS-CoV-2. The trained innate immune response is to a broad range of pathogens. So, you are subverting a potent innate immune response. In other words, you are going to take children and make them vulnerable to a broad range of pathogens. So much so that right now, we have this situation where WHO has placed avian influenza as a virus of concern. They have not declared it a higher level yet, but they say it’s on the radar. A form of avian flu is expanding right now, 

With an untrained innate immune system, children are going to become susceptible to avian flu. Monkeypox right now has foci of infection in a particular high-risk group in society. We have a lot of reservations as to how the CDC and WHO have reacted to it. They have been flat footed in providing the proper guidance to the high-risk group as to how to cut the chain of transmission. You always have to cut the chain of transmission. If you do not cut the chain of transmission, you cannot eliminate that pathogen and get to what we call herd immunity.

That’s when you look at the epi curve, the wave, you see it slope up to the peak and then all the way back down to the baseline. Once you see it come back down to baseline, that’s when herd immunity has been attained. Because of these non-sterilizing vaccines, what we are actually seeing right now, particularly with Omicron, when the curve is on a downward slope, it quickly goes back into another wave, and the subsequent peak is higher. And the subsequent peaks keep going up higher. That’s what we are seeing.

We are seeing that the curves are getting closer. They are happening faster, and they’re not coming back down to baseline. What does that tell us? That tells us something very alarming. It tells us that there is a massive amount of infection after every wave that remains in the environment. So, you are not getting to herd immunity. And it is because of these vaccines. The vaccines are making the vaccinated infected, period. That is what the evidence now shows us.

Mr. Jekielek:

Let me stop you for one second, because that’s obviously a very contentious statement. You’re basically saying that vaccines are driving infection?

Dr. Alexander:

They are.

Mr. Jekielek:

What is the evidence?

Dr. Alexander:

We have research. We have  already published papers that pointed this out. Yahi et al. is one. We have the actual data. We have data that was collected at a granular level from the United Kingdom. Every week, week by week, they would provide us the data. We looked at this for almost a year. And we were telling the world, “Look, all of a sudden the vaccinated, the double vaccinated, and then the triple vaccinated, first booster, are getting more infected than the unvaccinated.” So, we are saying something is wrong. This vaccine is doing something.

The UK stopped the data. They decided to not publish it anymore, with no proper explanation. Scotland did the same thing. Week after week, we were seeing the data. We said, “Look at the data.” We still have the graphs, they can’t take that away. We have saved them as PDF files. We have all of the data. This is happening in Israel, it’s happening in Denmark, and it’s happening in all of the Nordic nations.

When the vaccines were rolled out in February, March of 2020, the content of the vaccine was based on the Wuhan legacy strain of COVID. That’s where the concept of original antigenic sin comes into play. The original antigenic sin is a very simple, elegant concept. It says that the initial exposure or imprinting, prejudices the immune response lifelong.

So, based on the initial exposure the immune system had, whether it was via natural exposure to the infection or via vaccine, that immunological response will be recalled every time the immune system of that person confronts the pathogen in the environment. So, now you are confronting Omicron. But your immune system is recalling Wuhan antibodies. The recall is back to the Wuhan strain, that’s what is pulled up. But Wuhan antibodies cannot recognize the Omicron spike. They can’t hit it. They miss it completely. So, they cannot neutralize it.

Mr. Jekielek:

When you’re talking about these antibodies, you’re talking about vaccine antibodies. But to the casual listener right now, they might say to themselves, “If someone was naturally infected with an early variant like Wuhan or Delta they have the same problem, because they’re primed for Delta or the Wuhan strain. In this case, why is natural immunity different than vaccine immunity? Why is this natural immunity so much more effective, which is what the data says? Is it because the natural immunity is for the entirety of the virus, whereas the vaccine is purely for the spike? How does that work?

Dr. Alexander:

Exactly. You just answered it. Again, it’s very simple. I know the general public has tuned in over these last two years. I have understood this even more than the scientific experts at CDC. It makes no sense what they’re doing. The decisions they are making at the FDA and CDC, in my opinion, are actually causing harm to the public. And what you just said is exactly correct.

The vaccine provokes an immune response to one target on the virus, the spike protein which is what you see, those spicules that stick out on the outside surface of the viral ball. But the virus is made up of about 28 to 30 different proteins. On the surface area, there’s a membrane protein, the envelope protein. Inside of the virus there is a very conserved protein called the nucleocapsid protein. Regardless of the iterations of the virus, it is conserved. There is no change.

The spike, though, is the most mutable part of the virus. That makes us question, why would they target the immune response to the most mutable part of this virus, where the spike protein mutates continuously? Why didn’t they make the entire virus the target, the ball of the virus or other conserved parts of the virus, and not just the spike? You just answered it, which is that the vaccinal antibodies can only see the spike.

Natural immunity builds an immunological response to the entire viral ball, including the spike. The spike might change, but the natural immune system can recognize the other 20-something proteins on the surface molecules. It’s almost like if my sister decided that she was going to do some sort of facial adjustment, and she was going to adjust her nose and do a nose job. We have natural immunity versus vaccine immunity. My sister did a nose job. She changed her nose, right? Vaccinal immunity only knows one thing about my sister, which is her nose, but let’s call it a spike.

So when my sister comes back to see me, and let’s say I was vaccinal immunity. I wouldn’t recognize her, because she changed her nose. That’s the only thing I recognize about my sister. Natural immunity looks at my sister’s nose, her height, her weight, the shape of her eyes, her ears, the clothing she wears, her skin color, and her hair length. So, when she comes back around, natural immunity will look at her and say, “Hmm, that nose looks a little different now, but everything else is the same. This still is your sister.” This is an example of natural immunity versus vaccine immunity.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’re arguing that the continued use of these genetic vaccines for young people is actually driving infection and driving the emergence of new variants that could be even more problematic, like BA.5. We are getting initial information that it’s a more severe disease. Are you saying that vaccination should be stopped for this reason? What are you advocating for?

Dr. Alexander:

Now, it’s almost like Pfizer and Moderna have admitted failure. They have come out and stated in the last day or so that they’re going back to the lab to try to bring out in the fall or winter, a bivalent vaccine that is now comprised of two spikes, the Wuhan spike and the present Omicron spike, the BA.4, BA.5 sub variants. We argue, “That is as ridiculous as the current situation that we are in.”

By the time they bring that out, we will have new variants. We will end up back at ground zero, where we’ll be vaccinating into a pandemic for a second time with vaccinal antibodies that do not neutralize the virus. If we have COVID at that point with different variants predominant, how could a BA.4, BA.5 then match those new variants?

We are seeing that this vaccine was never needed in the beginning, because we had early drug treatment with the antivirals. We knew the at-risk target group was the elderly, high-risk people. We knew that we simply needed to provide focused protection. Very early on, by April of 2020, COVID showed us it was amenable to risk stratification. And baseline risk predicted severity of outcome and death. We knew there was a very steep age risk line. Risk only went up with age, and we needed focused protection. I refer back to the Great Barrington Declaration. We brought out a vaccine though that does not, out of the box, eliminate the virus.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky came to the podium around July of 2021, and said that double vaccinated people—at that point it was Delta, and it wasn’t even as infectious as Omicron—need to put on masks. We knew then that the vaccine had failed. It failed on Delta, and it completely fails on Omicron. It does not protect the upper respiratory areas. Dr. Vanden Bossche is arguing, and I see a lot of credibility in what he’s saying, that with this increased infectiousness that we are seeing in the upper respiratory tract, yet with protection in the lower respiratory tract, we should not take that as a win.

He predicted about a month ago that very soon we are going to see the same suboptimal immune pressure in the lower respiratory tract, placing pressure on viral violence. Variants are going to overcome that suboptimal immune pressure, and the blocking of severe outcomes that we’ve been seeing would be overcome. Selection pressure would select for variants that could drive severe outcomes. We are beginning to get initial reports that people with BA.5 are beginning to demonstrate more severe symptoms.

We are still saying early treatment is the key. You need to get an early treatment. You need to follow those protocols, the FLCCC (Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance) protocol, the Zelenko protocol, and the McCullough protocol. They’re out there. Early treatment is the way to go. This set of vaccines just does not work. In fact, they’re making matters far worse for the population, because we run the risk of bringing a variant that is not just infectious, but is also potentially lethal. We will not know how to cope with that.

I will end by saying that children bring zero risk to the table. The data has been very clear and stable for two years now, the children are at almost zero risk of severe outcome or death from COVID. So this is a vaccine that confers them no benefit, yet brings risk. We know about myocarditis, it has been published. There is pericarditis, and Guillain-Barre paralysis. We know of all of the issues, the blood clotting, and the bleeding from these vaccines. Dr. Kostoff, Dr. Tracy Hoeg, Dr. Jessica Rose, Dr. Peter McCullough, and myself, we have all written voraciously on the harms of myocarditis, pericarditis, bleeding, and blood clotting.

We trusted that the pharmaceutical companies did what we thought they should have been doing, which is that they studied children, and that these studies ran for the proper duration, with the proper sample size, and looked at the proper number of events. They did not. For Pfizer and Moderna, the FDA has seen no data from a properly conducted study that they have used for decision making. All of the studies were flawed methodologically. This is a fact. Pfizer and Moderna cannot challenge somebody like me or another evidence-based medicine person and show us that these studies are bonafide, high quality, robust and trustworthy. They are not.

You, the vaccine developer and you, the FDA regulator, are here to ensure that they have excluded harms. That statement is a critical statement. Maybe it’s not part of your lexicon, but it should be. The clinical trial conductor runs a study for the proper duration of follow up, so that they can exclude harms. They take those results to the regulator to get it approved, and to bring that product to market. If they have not excluded harms, the regulator can’t approve something that is harmful. But in this case, the proper studies for the proper duration, and the proper safety testing was never done. This is what you and I and the public found out after the fact, because we thought Pfizer and Moderna did the proper studies. They did not.

All of the prior mRNA vaccines trials in animals failed. The record is clear on that. When they tried these vaccines in the animal models, post SARS-1, in 2003, all of the animals got very, very sick with liver and kidney toxicity, and many died because of these mRNA vaccines. They have looked at them in coronaviruses before, and they all failed. It’s a fact. Now we have a situation where you have Pfizer and Moderna bring these suboptimal studies to the regulators, the FDA and the CDC, and they have approved them.

This is about our children here. You don’t have the data or the evidence to support the approval. Now people like us are going one step further. We are trying to warn parents and tell them this is way past defunct or terribly conducted studies. We are trying to tell them that there is an innate immune system in your child that needs proper training. Your innate immune system was trained when you’re a child. This vaccine will subvert it and damage it, and it will not be trained. Your child will be subject to COVID, and a host of other pathogens that could render them very sick and could mean catastrophe for them.

Here’s the question. Why would you take the chance? The academic medical research community, and the publishing community should hang their heads in shame. We need proper discussion and proper inquiry into how they stood back. They did not step up to the plate and band together and say, “No, this is crazy,” especially the evidence-based medicine world. They failed in their role to be the protector and to properly inform people.

We argue today that scientific research and evidence-based medicine is dead. In the era of COVID, these have died. There’s a core of ten to twelve of us who have been fighting from the beginning that you have included in your journalism, in your media, and in publishing interviews of us. We are saying, “Look, we’re overwhelmed by the millions of people who are against what we are saying.” Sometimes we can’t even get to the point where we can explain we are saying. We are just saying, “You know what? We are in this so deep. We can’t go back anymore, and we have to continue.” That is why I am still speaking and why I am still writing. That is the reason why.

Mr. Jekielek:

Dr. Paul Alexander, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show again.

Dr. Alexander:

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thank you all for joining Dr. Paul Alexander and I on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.

[Narration/Jan Jekielek]:

The FDA did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Truth Social:


Read More
Related Videos