top of page

Dr. Paul Alexander: The Politicization of Science & Why Healthy Children Shouldn’t Get the COVID Vax

Part 2


“If you say these vaccines are safe for my children … remove the liability protection.”

Previously, in part one of our exclusive interview with Brownstone Institute’s Dr. Paul Alexander, an expert in evidence-based medicine and clinical epidemiology, we discussed booster shots, the data on natural immunity, and the failures of lockdown policies.

Now in part two, he reflects on his time in the Trump administration and the backlash he faced after he opposed school closures and advocated for early outpatient treatment. And he breaks down why he believes mandating COVID-19 vaccines for children is unethical, unscientific, and dangerous.

This interview can be watched here:

Watch part one of this interview with Dr. Paul Alexander HERE.

Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Nov 23, 2021. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump to your work in the administration. Just tell me out you work in the administration and what you saw.

Dr. Alexander: Here I am, I come from the islands originally, and I have some family in Toronto who aren’t well health wise. I’m taking care of them there and one day, WHO Geneva Pan American Health, DC sent me an email. And we were in this discussion and they said, “Because of the particular skills that you have, we’d like you to work as a consultant in developing a training program for low and middle income countries across the world.” So I was doing that from about mid 2019 with WHO-PAHO, DC.

And then around January, when the cases began, when there was some images of people dropping dead in Lombardy, Italy and parts of China, WHO and PAHO said, “We want you to pivot your role now to be our COVID advisor.” So I became in February Pan-American Health Organization, WHO’s evidence based synthesis advisor, principle. They had no infrastructure in place yet. Why me?

I always ask myself that because I think because of my education at McMaster. It’s a very niche skill, a particular set of skill in evidence based research. I’ve always told people that my master program is probably the best in the world. I had the privilege of schooling there under Dr. Guyatt, I learned from him. And so I took that position. I actually was rolling up all of the science and the data for WHO and PAHO from February, March.

Then around the end of April, the beginning of May, I got a telephone call while I was in Toronto and the person, the other line said, “We are calling from the US administration, the White House. We are talking on behalf of the White House, and we want to speak to you.” I thought it was Ashton Kushner or someone punching me. I said, “Well, what do you mean the US administration?” Said, Well, yes, we’ve seen some of your work. We’ve seen stuff that you’ve said. And some of it in the government, in US government, all the way to the top of government.”

It was told to me as bluntly. They want your voice behind the scenes to provide more balance and push back, and I was explained bluntly. They don’t want only scientists around POTUS and in the administration, that is just, would just say what people want to hear. They want people who are controversial, who are willing to look at the science properly and give a proper understanding of the science using your skills. So I said, “Okay, I’m coming.” And they said, “Okay, well, how about tomorrow? We will meet you at the border.” The border was closed.

They said, “You drive there and we’ll take you across and we begin the process.” So I took my wife and my youngest child. I went to the US border in Fort Erie. It was as you think it was, there were no cars on the Canadian side, nothing on US side, just armed security moving around. So when I approached the border, it’s very interesting. The customs, the immigration guy walked up to the car and he was armed, and he looked at me and he said, “What are you doing here? Because we have just closed all the borders.” I said, well, I was actually a little scared because it was very intimidating. I said, “Well, X and X and X from the US government told me to arrive here today. And they’re going to meet me at this time to take me into the US.”

He looked at me as though I was like crazy. And he said, “Well, nobody didn’t tell me that. You need to put your car in reverse and turn around.” And just as he was saying that, some customs, immigration officers walked up to him, spoke to him, and then he turned around and looked at me and he opened the thing. And he said, “Come through.” So I don’t know who he was speaking to behind the scenes.

So I drove through and then I met who I was supposed to meet. I saw them. I met them. We sat down in this black, it’s like a movie, a small island boy, black suburban vehicle, I sat down in it and he spoke to me for about a couple hours. He said, “We’re going to take you down into Buffalo, vet you a little more.”

I went to an office building in Buffalo. My wife stayed at the border with the little one. They drove me there and then I’m sitting there and I could hear them speaking to people in the White House. They’re talking to them based on our conversation, they were asking me questions. They went through the whole thing. It was almost like an FBI check, like about terrorism, every single thing. And then at the end, they said, “We want to know if you’d be interested in joining the administration seriously.” And I said, “Yeah.”

At that point, I still thought it wasn’t true. But they said, “Well, yes. And we’ll give you one week and you have to come to DC, blah, blah, blah.” So I went. When I got there, is very important that you know this, society does not know. The public does not know this, so I’m telling you.

When I got there, it was told to me upfront that, “Well, it has been leaked in the media that the White House has hired a scientist, you, to work in the Communications Office and there’s some outrage and they’re going to make your life hell from day one.” My role was a technical role, not a political role. Was to provide any technical support to these people.

I had a conversation with my wife and I said, “Is very stressful in that office because there’s really no support.” The building was empty. It was this big building. There was a lot of military there with me because Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine was ramping up, it was staged in the floor above my floor. So it was soldiers everywhere. It was very tense. And because the military had a role in the logistics of the vaccine. So from the beginning, the military had to be involved to arrange the logistics.

I told my wife, “I’m going to try and write it out day by day.” And I did support, full disclosure, I’ll say it on record. I supported President Trump, philosophically, because I appreciated what I was seeing in the news and what I actually came to know in DC, in some things that were being done to help minority communities. I actually was seeing the programs and seeing what was going on behind the scenes. And I told myself, I come from an immigrant background. On my mother’s side, a lot my family are colored. I am this color because of how things happen across generations. But, as my heritage and my background, then I said, “I like what this guy is doing and I appreciate it, I will work for him, but as a scientist.”

When we talk about silence and scientists today, like Kulldorff and Bhattacharya, and us, this is real. We really go through hell. We suffer, our names and our careers. So what happened was the White House made this policy. At that point, we’re like in August. And because the election was heating up, every week, the president, his team, and this public knowledge, lays out the agenda for the week. Where the president will be. Now, that I can’t discuss here. How the president is going to be moving and where the president is going to be, what the president is going to be saying. So that if you are an official for the government, your message has to line up with the government. It can’t be adverse to what the president is saying, because you are working for the president, the pleasure of the president.

They made this procedure at that point that the task force were going, all of the members were going on the news, CNN, CBS, ABC every day. And on weekends, a lot of shows they were appearing. But a lot of what they were saying were against what President Trump was saying. So they made this rule where from here on, any task force member who’s going on a national media have to tell the White House and the Communications Office where they’re going.

We are not curtailing anybody, but we are going to look at what you’re saying. And if what you are going to discuss does not align with the president, we’re going to have to ask you to ensure that, how should I say it? Put it this way, the president, let’s say on a particular week was discussing the opening of schools. You can’t go on the media, you work for the government and you be advocating the closing of schools.

In my role and other persons, we were to share with the task force what is the science to support what they’re going to be saying. We got an email. This is what started my situation. We got an email from the NIH, CDC, involve Dr. Fauci. And the email basically in general was saying that Dr. Fauci is going on the news this weekend, this show, this show, this show. And Dr. Fauci is going to be talking about school closures, et cetera.

We were asked to comment. I responded, when my turn to comment and I responded to the NIH and I responded to everybody, CDC people, whomever was on that. It was a massive number of high level officials. I said, “Look, Dr. Fauci cannot go on the news and advocate for schools closing, this is in general what I said, because the science does not support that position. And here’s what the science says. And I attached about 10 studies.

There was a study out of Sweden at that point. Martin Kulldorff mentioned it earlier. Ludvigsson, with Dr. Ludvigsson. It looked at 1.95 million Swed kids, ages zero to 16, followed them for the entire pandemic, no lockdowns, no mass, nothing. They found zero instances of death. Zero. In fact, the teachers did better, at or better, than people of other professions outside of teaching. And we knew that.

I explained to them that the teaching profession is probably the safest profession to be in because the median age in America is 41. Teachers are generally young and healthy. If you are an unhealthy person, you have a medical condition as a teacher, yes, exercise your option to work remotely. You make that arrangement. But the carte blanche keep schools closed. We had another study out of the French Alps by Danis et al. They looked at one child that was infected in France, moved around to three schools, contaminated 120 other people, teachers and students.

They found not one instance of secondary transmission. I went through every single study in my response and I said, “This is the science.” So if Dr. Fauci, this was my question, if Dr. Fauci is not aware of the science, can you please share the science with Dr. Fauci? Because if he’s advocating to keep schools closed, there’s no science today that I have seen that supports it. That they should not be advocating for keeping schools closed because you are suffering children.

Listen, sexual abuse of children skyrocketed with the school closures. The school is the one place that sexual abuse and physical abuse of children comes to the attention of the school often first. That is how we know what’s going on in a home, often. When you close schools, there were hundreds of thousands of cases that escaped capture, that we missed.

We had parents, husbands and wives appearing. We were looking at the data, the news wouldn’t report it. But see, I knew the data. The news wouldn’t report it because it would’ve given President Trump a positive look because he was pushing to open schools. They were keeping schools closed. We had data showing us from the different states that there were husbands and wives appearing at the emergency room with their child limp, unresponsive in their arms, telling the emergency room doctor, “Look, I think I might have killed my child. Could you help me.” And explain that I’ve been laid off, my husband’s been laid off. We’ve been fighting each other now for a year, beating each other and we beat the child. We knew the data. President Trump knew the data. That is why people saw him aggressively on the podium, begging the country to reopen and the schools to reopen and fighting with the unions because he was seeing what we were seeing.

And the media would not report it because then it would make Trump look good. We were trying, I was trying everything I could to inform whomever, the NIH and CDC. Look, you people are a little misguided because if you talking about the science, you’re not following the science. The science shows that you’re wrong.

Long and short of this was after that email exchange, there was a high level meeting on HHS. And there were people from CDC and NIH that came. And after the meeting, I’m walking back to my cubicle office and they were going to the elevator and they walked with me. And two of them, I didn’t even know these people, but they were in this meeting. Often you have this big high level meeting teleconference and people take roll call, but you, they’re like 50 people. You don’t even know them.

A lot of them were justice people, lawyers. They’re there to make sure you don’t say anything wrong. Anyway, they walk with me and they say, “Paul, we know that you are here and stuff. And we really like a lot of things that you say, and we actually agree with you.” So I said, “Well, first of all,” I thought they were lawyers and said, “No, we work at NIH and we are going.” I said, “Well, thank you very much.” And they said, “We want to let you know something, because of your push back on the NIH and Dr. Fauci openly, they’re going to smear and slander you. They’ve already gotten all of your units communications, and they’re going to pick a word or a line that you’ve written, not your entire communication. And they’re going to create a story around that line.”

So I’m asking them, I said, “Well, how can I prevent that?” They said you can’t prevent it. It’s already done. The story’s probably going to run in about four days. And exactly as they said, in about four days from that day, the news started to leak my emails. So that began in DC and the White House and everyone involved made sure they let me know. And whomever I worked with and other people who were being attacked like Dr. Atlas, et cetera, do not respond to the media. Don’t grant no interviews, just write it out.

But I have to tell you, I was in DC, where my apartment was, that was the Capital Building and that was the White House. I was in the nerve center of it. I had press outside my building. I had people calling, the media, I don’t know how they did it, they leaked my cell phone. Press were calling me. People were calling my phone, sending me threatening emails, threatening my life, my wife, my little kid.

What surprised me the most was faculty at McMaster. I was stunned. They were faculty at McMaster who were outraged that I worked for President Trump. I’m sitting in DC and I didn’t know what to do. I’m sharing with you. I wanted to go home, means home for me was Canada. But I’m thinking, how would I do this? Because I don’t know maybe if I get home, I might see people outside my door. Because that’s how these people operate. And I was dealing with it in DC. And then I got moved around DC, between Virginia, Maryland, back to DC for safety and security. I was being held for my safety, to keep my family safe.

And at one point, just so that you understand, what the media writes about people is almost 99.5% untrue, often. And they did that to me. They tried to cancel Dr. Atlas. They’ve tried to cancel Dr. Bhattacharya, many good professors, many good doctors in Canada, I’ll give you Dr. Mark Trozzi, Dr. Francis Christian, Dr. Huff, Dr. Kulvinder Gill, all these people I work with daily on early treatment, why? Because they advocated early treatment.

And then I was told because you are pushing, advocating for early outpatient treatment, even though we knew that it was effective and it saved lives, that was off the table. And because you’ve done that, I had also written, the FDA, high level, this communication, where I laid out looking at the clinical trials as is going on. I have been in government and stuff. I’d like to tell you that these are the flaws that I think are in the trial.

I think that the trial, you must follow this trial longer too. The issue about talking about giving emergency use authorization to such a small sample size, small number of events. And I went through the research methods with them said, “Once you have less than 200 events, less than 200 events, there’s a severe risk of overestimating of the treatment effect.” We published those papers. I came from McMaster and we are purest methodologist. I laid out how wrong they were in Washington EAU. And I said, “What are the surveillance that you need to implement? The surveillance systems to follow the safety events long term?”

I was on the chopping block for, it was almost as though the bulls eye was in between my eyes and it was the most horrible experience ever. Especially with my experience at McMaster, because McMaster reached out to me and told me, because I mean, you’re Canadian, I’ll explain to you what they did. They said, “Paul, we have the entire media in Canada, want an interview?” I said, “Well, I can’t give no interview to nobody. White House has told me I can’t speak to anybody.” Then they said, “They want to interview people in the university.” I said, “Well, I can’t stop that.” All of a sudden, I started to get emails and calls from professors from Oxford, because I attended Oxford, who were my professors back then, I even forgot who they were, telling me, “Paul, this media person sent me an email and wanted to ask me questions about you. What type of person you were. Did I ever see anything odd about you? And you were just my scientific student, this person actually supervised my thesis. I don’t have anything negative to say, what should I tell them?” I said, “Well, you just tell them the truth.”

They communicated. They went into all my published literature, all of the studies I published and they’re numerous. And they found all of the quarters that I quartered with. And they communicated with them asking them things about me. Is this a good guy? Did he ever do anything wrong to you? Nobody had anything negative to say about me. But, it is the most catastrophic thing, devastating to you, to know that I am living in Canada. This is my home. Now I’m outside. And you have the press in Canada, like in a frenzy. They just want a story. They just want to write something and they’re not investigating it properly to know the truth. And it just went on and on. And then by around the end of September, I couldn’t take it much more.

And I’ll be straightforward. I’ll tell you on the inside. The White House called me and told me that you just keep not responding to the press. We are going to bring you into the White House in two weeks, move you out of HHS and bring you there. And that will be it. By then, there will be another story. Turns out next day, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, sadly. And from my point of view, I got communications from the White House and said, they pretty much told me and other persons that now you’re going to be off the front page because now they have another story to deal with. And that’s exactly what happened. It stopped right there. But I was so frustrated. I was so angry as to what I went through. I wasn’t interested in going to the White House. I wasn’t interested in anything anymore.

I still supported Trump. I still did. I still do. That’s a separate discussion. But, I left. I gave my resignation at the end of September and that was it. And when I left and I went back to Canada immediately, people like Dr. Risch, Dr. McCullough, different people across the world wrote me and said, “We saw what you were going through and stuff, but we don’t want to waste your intelligence and your ability. We are working on early treat. We’re working on different issues and we want you to join our teams.” So I joined about six different research groups electronically and by teleconference.

And I realized I had to keep my mind busy to just help me begin some kind of healing from what I went through. And so that’s what I’ve been active, in early treatment. Writing all these papers, consulting, interviewing on Fox, wherever, just to keep me sane, because it is true that it is very difficult for you to go through that situation, come out of it normal anymore. Because they literally, they take your life and they try to burn you down.

And it’s just a terrible situation. I’ll give you an example. In one of my communications, I am discussing that the best situation for children, healthy children, well children, is to allow them to be exposed. But I didn’t mean deliberately. I meant harmlessly as part of their normal life. Open schools, let them live normally. The data has shown us clearly. I just cited some studies. The children were not at risk. Let them live normal lives. You’re masking them, you’re weakening their immune systems. They’re going to have all sorts of medical conditions in the future because the immunity, the immune system doesn’t work that way. It must be tuned and taxed up daily.

Children’s immune system have to be within the school environment so it could remain tuned up and it could deal with pathogen normally. By you locking them down, we are going to create, I am guaranteeing you by around December of that year, and next year, you’re going to have examples of conditions that we have dealt with and tamped down, it’s going to flare up again because children’s immune systems, we have weakened it. We’ve taken it all offline.

What they did was they took lines and they leaked it and said, “Look, this is Dr. Alexander saying let all the children be infected.” I never said that. I never meant that. They did not leak my entire email. That’s the key.

And I just have to say one thing that the occasions that I went to the White House to actually have meetings, the people that I’ve met, the people that I dealt with at the highest levels were good people. I had meetings with Dr. Peter Navarro. He was one of President Trump’s right hand people, brilliant individual, very, very good advocate. He was one of the advocates for early treatment. Somebody I admire greatly. But the other parts of my experience was just a disaster. And sometimes people write me and say, “We don’t know how you continued. And like you’re not so bitter and stuff.”

And I have to say, “I am.” But, we also, we in a huge battle here. And right now I am probably with a few other people, waging the present battle against vaccines in children, because we’ve realized that children bring such low risk to the table, statistical zero risk. And the vaccines have shown now to have some problems. But why would we vaccinate children and put them on potential risk for the rest of their life? This is a hill that I am on right now battling and I’ll continue on. I think this is a worthy cause, and this is where I am.

I wrote for AIER before, and I got all of my work, not all, but some with Jeffrey, Jeffrey Tucker. And when he shifted to Brownstone and I knew he was going there, I have such admiration for him. I told him, “I want to write for you. And these are the different topics and stuff.” And I started to send stuff to him and some of it got published and is where we are.

Narration: Our team reached out to HHS, the US Department of Health and Human Services. But we did not immediately receive a response.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, very briefly, you’re a part of a number of initiatives right now, and I want to get you to tell me about those in addition to Brownstone, of course, just very briefly give me the reality around vaccines and children.

Dr. Alexander: There’s no evidence available. If you look at sum total of the evidence and I challenge Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins of NIH, who heads the NIH, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who heads CDC. I challenge any of them collectively to meet me any place, any office building, let us sit down and debate what evidence that they have to show that children are at such risk that they warrant these vaccines. And I can tell you, they won’t take me up on it because there’s none.

The issue with the children with vaccines is this, children generally have been spared. You can see that. You can see based on the science and the data that children have been spared from COVID. COVID is not seasonal influenza. Influenza is very harsh on children, but not COVID. And to be honest, I wrote an op-ed, it was published in Defender and also Brownstone, that I made the argument, a clear statement that we must consider that children are already vaccinated and immune.

And I made that argument by looking at the science and I pulled six studies. Patel showed us that children have limited ACE2 receptors in their nostrils. And it’s that receptor that the virus uses to gain access to the cell. The S1 subunit docks first, gets cleaved, exposes the S2 subunit and the virus gets into the cell to begin the replication. That’s number one. This helps explain, at least partly, why children are at such low risk. There’s a molecular basis for this. It is legitimate and is an age stratified risk that you could see from the data they’ve published that only when you get older into adults, et cetera, that the ACE2 receptors are expressed, means produced, at higher levels in the nostrils that allows for higher levels of infection.

I also found research by Loske et al. I remember this research, if I can recollect correctly, they showed in their study that children bring a pre-activated innate immunity. It’s already primed and sensitized to SARS-CoV-2, to the virus. That it allows children, their response to be very nimble and quick.

I also found research by Yang et al, that looked at children’s prior exposure to common cold coronavirus, the B-cell immunity. And I also found research by Weisberg and Farber that showed that the T-cell response in children is so naive and untrained that it puts the children’s response to SARS-CoV-2 in a much stronger footing than even an adult.

There was also research coming out of Yale that showed that there were particular immune molecules called Interferon gamma, and Interlukin 17A that children have a higher volume of it, expression of it much so than adults and their research showed that because of that, children have a much better response to SARS-CoV-2.

Collectively, I was saying, “Look, it’s not just because of the epidemiology we saw in the Swedish study that showed you expose children in a school setting, epidemiologically, there were no deaths. The Danis et al study. And I wrote an op-ed with 50 different studies, comparative studies that showed with the school closure, et cetera, that children bring almost zero risk to the table. Why would you, when you marry that epidemiology, plus the molecular evidence that I presented, I said, “Well, we have to consider children are immune. They are already vaccinated. Don’t touch them, leave them alone.”

And I’ll end by saying Dr. Marty Makary, Johns Hopkins. He’s one of the top epidemiologists. He’s always in the media. I actually think he’s a smart guy. I don’t agree with some things that he says, but generally, he’s very technically sound. And I admire him tremendously. He clamored with the CDC to ask them those instances of children who’ve died in America. That you the CDC says died due to COVID. You peg the COVID today death. We want to see whether COVID was incidental or causal, the CDC has refused to provide the detail.

His team, and it’s been published, his team looked at the deaths, and he has reported that they can’t find one instance of a child that was not ill, severely ill that CDC says died due to COVID. That makes you understand that we are not dealing with well, listen, I’m a parent. My youngest is 12. The death of a child is probably the most catastrophic things you can ever experience. And I don’t know how a parent lives. This is a very delicate discussion to have, but we need to be based on the science here. We need to follow. You cannot be making policies where you are scaring parents into taking this vaccine that you have not studied.

The vaccine is showing that it’s not working against the Delta. We already know the harms in terms of the teens with myocarditis, et cetera. And myocarditis is not a rare or mild issue. When those teens who’ve got myocarditis now, that we’ve found and reported in VAERS, and it’s been in the news. Those cases, when the doctor provides them support and treatment and they get treated about. The problem is we know that myocarditis comes knocking again in 20, 25 years when they’re 30, 35, 40, and they’re at the prime of their life beginning their family. Because myocarditis damages the myocardium, it damages, scars the heart muscle. Heart muscle doesn’t rejuvenate. The cardiac reserve, et cetera, is lost. They’re going to have a problem most likely in the future. And I have seen data that suggests that for severe cases of myocarditis, a five year outlook to 10 years, about 50% death.

So the bottom line is this, they cannot, they have not prosecuted the case as to why children must be vaccinated. They tried to tell us, Dr. Fauci, a few months ago, well, we do not know if we can get to herd immunity. So we need children as part of the equation. If you could recollect, that was his argument. Well for him to have gotten there, he needed to discount the 15 to 20% of people who in the population who already have cross reactive cross protective immunity from common cold Corona viruses. He needed to discount the 50 to 60% of people who are COVID recovered from the equation. He needs to discount people who’ve already been vaccinated and have some immunity. To say that you need children in that mix to move to population level immunity is actually, to me, so deceitful and so duplicitous that you would scare.

And when was it in history that we used children to protect adults. We use adults to protect children always. Children were never to be in this equation. Influenza is a far worse condition for children. RSV viruses is a far worse condition, not SARS-CoV-2. And if you go ahead to vaccinate children where we have already seen the risk due to myocarditis, we run the risk of tuning children, because what we are seeing now in Israel and UK, inter-asymptomatic super spreaders also.

We run the risk of harming children. Remember, and this is the key. My argument is children have a natural protection because of the fact that we found out that they have limited ACE2 to receptors in their nostrils. We understand that, that is a fact by Patel et al. That was a research group published in JAMA.

Now, if you bypass this natural protection, this is my hypothesis. This is what I’ve communicated. Why would we bypass the natural protection here and introduce the vaccine into the deltoid in the arm? We have the studies now, we have the evidence. There is a FOIA request, Japanese FOIA request that shows that the contents of the vaccine, 75% of the vaccine leaves the deltoid lymphoid area and enters the circulation. We know that. There was a study by Ogata et al from Harvard that showed that they found spike, the actual spike, in the blood stream soon after the vaccination, at least for two weeks.

Now there’s some new research by Dr. Paterson, groundbreaking research, Paterson et al, he shows that he has detected the S1 subunit spike in the bloodstream from COVID recovered persons, persons who had COVID, in the blood 15 months post. That makes you understand that if the persons who’ve had COVID have spike in their blood for 15 months, remember the spike is pathogen, is the dangerous part of the virus.

If you have spike and remnants of it in your blood 15 months and he’s shown this, it is most likely to me, almost 100% with vaccine, you are going to also have spike in the blood. The question then becomes, why would you bypass this natural mechanism? This natural safety that children have with limited ACE2. We’ve seen that they don’t get infected readily, why would you now forcefully introduce the vaccine into the deltoid, get that vaccine content into the blood system.

We’ve seen all of these deaths in adults and the adverse events in adults. The argument can be made that if you introduce this vaccine into the arm of children, they’re going to show deaths just like adults. They have not shown the deaths today because they’ve been spared from the virus because of their natural protection. If you now introduce the vaccine here, enters the bloodstream, that same spike that people like Dr. Malone, Robert Malone, Dr. Mike Eden, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Dr. McCullough, all of these people. When we look at the other doctor, Patrick Whelan, pediatric specialist, that the spike actually damages the vascular layer, the endothelial layer that lines the vasculature of all of your blood vessels. That’s the problem we have.

Put it this way, the evidence seems to suggest, the data, COVID is less of a respiratory illness. It’s a vascular illness. In other words, when persons die of end stage COVID, they don’t die because there’s virus in the lung. They die because there are blood clots in the lung. There are very microthrombi across the blood that you need to introduce antiplatelet, anticoagulation drugs, high dose aspirin, heparin, et cetera, to thin the blood. Because it’s the microthrombi that causes the disaster and the desaturation and the lack of oxygen and the failure for gas exchange, et cetera, and the problems that you’re breathing.

So the question is, if a child has shown us that they don’t readily get infected today. And we found a molecular basis because of the limited ACE2, we found the lLoske study with the pre-activated antiviral innate immune system, we found the positive B-cell response, the T-cell response, prior exposure to coronavirus. We have all these studies. Why would you now introduce a vaccine that in adults, we are having reports and instances of people have died from the vaccine and the spike protein that you produce cellularly, as part of the immune response, is the endothelial pathogen. It can damage the vasculature. It can damage the endothelium. It can cause blood clots, bleeding, et cetera. This is not my statements. This is what is accumulating now in the evidence. It’s there, it’s published.

My question is, leave the children alone. My statement. Here’s the key here, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky, Dr. Francis Collins, all of the vaccine manufacturers must come to the table and put liability protection on the table and remove it. The only person who’s exposed here for harm is the children. All of these vaccine developers and all of these alphabet agencies have liability protection. That’s a concern I have from something that President Trump did. Under the, I believe it was the PREP Act, these people have been absolved from liability.

Now, if you stand by this vaccine, Dr. Walensky and Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci, if you say these vaccines are safe for my children, if you stand by them, you come to the table and you put liability protection on it. And you say, “I am going to remove it.” Because only then can a parent be confident. Right now you absolve from being sued, all of the vaccine companies. That’s the protection they have. Why would I expose my child? You have no exposure. Remove your protection, give me some confidence as a parent. Then we could talk about vaccinating my child. I know they won’t do that. But I’m telling you, that’s the issue. Remove the liability protection and then we will talk about vaccinating children. Until then, leave them alone.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, this is a very appropriate place to finish up, but before we do that, please let us know, I know you have a new, this new unity initiative with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty. I know that you have your own website. Where can people find, because you have an incredible, I guess, set of literature that you’ve compiled, and people are going to want to see these papers that you’re talking about. So tell me about these initiatives and where do people look?

Dr. Alexander: Yes. Thank you very much for this opportunity. So my website where I’ve published a lot of the op-eds and a lot of the research, particularly in early treatment, it’s No caps, no spaces. That’s, P-A-U-L-A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R, I’ve also teamed up with Mr. Jeff Hansen out of California, and he’s formed this unity project where he brought scientists like Dr. McCullough, Dr. Kheriaty, as you said, Dr. Robert Malone, myself together to try and fight this issue on the vaccines for children. I’m part of that and it’s The Unity Project, and it’s just gotten off the ground.

But from what I’m seeing already, it’s going to be doing great things in California, and hopefully it will transcend the country. And I will end by just saying a lot of good doctors and scientists, Dr. Bhattacharya, Dr. Kulldorff, myself, et cetera, we’ve been attacked and smeared by the media. And often it’s just because we are trying to bring a balanced look at everything. We are looking at all of the evidence so that the population could be informed. It’s a terrible situation that you could attack dissenting persons and people who raise questions. And we are skeptics because we want a balanced approach and a full reporting so that the public could make properly informed decisions.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, Dr. Paul Alexander, it’s such a pleasure to have you on.

Dr. Alexander: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.

Article link:

Dr. Paul Alexander’s website: The Unity Project website:

17 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

We're weren't As of October 7, the Florida Surgeon General recommends against the mRNA vaccines for males aged 18-39 years old. The Florida Health Department still recommends against their use in heal

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are likely killing people. And, likely killing people who were least likely to die, or to get very sick, from a COVID-19 infection. But, with the wind in big pharma's sail

Is the FDA panel using their brains. Maybe increasing scrutiny has forced their brains to work. “All the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) could agree about o

Post: Blog2 Post
bottom of page