The first 4 pages of 34, the pdf will open and can be downloaded: This document represents the preliminary findings of an investigation conducted by the member-physicians of America’s Frontline Doctors.
We are recommending caution for patients and policy makers and employers. Additional
transparency and more research are needed before we ask Americans to embark on the
largest experimental medical program in US history. The unknowns must be addressed
through a scientifically rigorous process.
Mandates for experimental medical therapies are neither permissible nor advisable.
Ordinary Americans should not be compelled to sign up for a “vaccine passport” or
similar mandate just to travel on an airplane or see a concert with friends. The potential
for third-party abuse of private health information and real medical risk to individuals
remains much too high. Concentrations of private power pose a threat to privacy and
other civil liberties and policy makers must proceed with caution.
We also ask our public health agencies to avoid prioritization of experimental biological
agents based on race. Zero-pressure “opt-out” policies should be continued with the
COVID-19 vaccine just as they have with previous inoculations. Furthermore, the CDC’s
tiers of prioritization place seniors not residing in long-term-care facilities last in line for
immunization, even though patient experience and data tell us that 70 percent of US
deaths have occurred among those 70 and older.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) associated with any other group?
No. Our member-physicians are completely independent with no financial or corporate
obligation to any related organization. We are associated with neither the pharmaceutical
industry nor the so-called “anti-vaxxer” movement. We are not opposed to childhood
inoculations, vaccination programs, or similar initiatives of public health. As practicing
physicians, we have all been vaccinated. However, we oppose mandatory vaccination
compelled by government or private interests, e.g., employers, airline carriers, concert
venues, and so on, unless medically necessary based on mortality rates and other factors. This
is of urgent concern since the current initiative uses an “investigational,” or experimental,
What does AFLDS mean by “experimental vaccine”?
According to the Food and Drug Administration, “An investigational drug can also be called
an experimental drug and is being studied to see if your disease or medical condition
improves while taking it.” See pg. 15. The Pfizer and Moderna and AstraZeneca applications
properly identify their new agents as “investigational,” which is normal at this very early
stage of development. All the vaccine candidates are categorized as experimental for the
following four reasons:
• the pharmaceutical companies have applied for investigational use status
• adverse events will be settled under the legal standard for experimental medications
• recipients are enrolled as subjects in a medical trial to gather data on side effects.
• persons are enrolled in a pharmaco-vigilance tracking system for at least two years
• many groups of persons have not been studied at all, including: prior COVID-19
patients, pregnant women, youths, elderly
• no published animal studies data
Is the vaccine safe?
Vaccine safety requires proper animal trials and peer-reviewed data, neither of which has
occurred during operation warp speed. This is especially concerning considering the fatal
failure of prior coronavirus vaccine attempts such as SARS-CoV-1, the virus that is 78%
identical to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Prior coronavirus (and other respiratory) vaccines
have failed due to the scientific phenomena known as pathogenic priming that makes the
vaccine recipient more likely to suffer a sudden fatal outcome due to massive cytokine storm
when exposed to the wild virus. In addition to pathogenic priming there are three other
potential safety issues that are being minimized. While we are hopeful that the vaccine is
both effective and safe, hope is not science. Because these experimental vaccines have not
been tested in accordance with the usual standards, we have serious concerns about safety.
Is AFLDS suggesting that the COVID vaccine is unsafe?
No. We are saying that by definition it is unsafe to widely distribute an experimental vaccine,
because taking a vaccine is completely different than taking an ordinary medication. In
contrast to taking a medication for an actual disease, the person who takes a vaccine is
typically completely healthy and would continue to be healthy without the vaccine. As the
first rule of the Hippocratic Oath is: do no harm, vaccine safety must be guaranteed. That has
not yet happened. More studies of the vaccine’s safety and efficacy should be conducted and
published, and more transparency about possible risks provided to the public before
Americans enter the largest experimental medication program in our history.
Is AFLDS arguing that the COVID vaccine is ineffective?
After it has been proved safe, the vaccine might be demonstrated to be effective in COVID19 in certain categories, although we do not know that yet with a high degree of confidence.
That is because the only group that really may benefit is the advanced elderly, and there is
very limited data on efficacy and almost none on safety in this group. For healthy persons ≤
69, it is impossible to state that a vaccine is effective simply because the lethality of the virus
itself is virtually nonexistent. See pg. 13.
Why should Americans approach the vaccine’s accelerated rollout with caution?
There are medical privacy and other civil liberties concerns surrounding the experimental
vaccine that have not been properly addressed. In particular, granting third-party access
(including technology platforms, governments, private enterprise) to patient data in the form
of a proposed “vaccine passport” or other mechanism ought to receive additional scrutiny
through legislative deliberation before airlines, concert venues and transit operators mandate
its use. See pg. 30.
Why should experimental vaccine prioritization concern African Americans and other ethnic minorities?
The Centers for Disease Control has three major phases for initial vaccination of the US
population: 1a, 1b and 1c. We already know that Phase 1a will target healthcare workers and
those living in long-term-care facilities. The remaining categories are less defined. For
example, 1b consists of “essential workers” broadly categorized, but includes professional
occupations in which black Americans are overrepresented. In addition, federal agency
guidance has made early outreach to black and minority communities a top priority. AFLDS
will never support prioritization of an experimental vaccine based on race. The only
prioritization for a voluntary experimental medication must be based upon medical risk.
Under this paradigm the prioritization should be to offer this first to SNF (and similar groups)
patients on a voluntary basis See pg. 25.
Why is the FDA not prioritizing older persons?
Persons over 70 with co-morbid conditions should be offered (not mandated) access to this
experimental medication first. That is person living in SNFs and similar groupings. The next
priority is all persons over 70, and persons with co-morbid conditions, which are more
common as Americans age, meaning persons over 60 with co-morbid conditions. Any other
priority is inconsistent with the science.
I. COVID-19: Policy Myths
COVID-19 was first identified in Wuhan China in December 2019. It spread from China
to Europe and ultimately it swept the globe with the first non-travel cases in USA in late
February. Since then COVID-19 has dominated every news story, every day, in every
national and international conversation. Such omnipresent media attention is
unprecedented for a pandemic. The American public heard about Zika, Ebola, Swine Flu,
but nothing like this. Scientists know that there are pandemics every few years. In fact,
this is the third respiratory virus that escaped from China in the past 25 years; first the
bird flu, then SARS, then H7N9.
The most recent large pandemic to affect USA prior to COVID-19 was the Hong Kong
Flu of 1968-69. As of mid-2020, it was similar size to COVID-19. (By CDC calculations,
at this time COVID-19 has overtaken the Hong Kong Flu in deaths but the CDC numbers
are widely accepted as inflated as deaths “with” COVID are counted alongside deaths
“from” COVID.) As reported in the New York Times in 1968-69: “Hong Kong Flu
Attacks Thousands Here Swiftly” and “Hong Kong Flu is Affecting Millions in Wide
Areas Around the World.” 100,000 Americans died (equivalent to about 150-175k today
with COVID due to higher population, obesity, and older age).
Despite the similar scope, the national response was completely different. American life
continued entirely normally during the Hong Kong Flu, with no suggestion of locking
down anything – in fact the Woodstock Festival took place in the midst of the Hong
Kong Flu. We start with this to remind the reader that current information must be
understood in the context of other events or the reader will be easily misled.
There has been massive disinformation from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,
starting with its name. Everyone recalls that its name was initially the Wuhan Virus. That
is because epidemics have historically been named for the location from where they arise
or are associated. Consider: Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Spanish Flu, Middle East
Respiratory Syndrome, Lyme Disease, Zika, Ebola as some examples. The re-branding as
COVID-19 took significant media effort and signaled a massive disinformation was
coming. The Chinese Communist Party made it known that it did not want this to be
called the Wuhan Virus, and that it should just be called “the coronavirus.” But this
proved very confusing to doctors who already knew of six other coronaviruses. So it was
renamed a third time, as COVID-19, which stands for Corona Virus Disease – 2019.
Following its re-branding as COVID-19, the disinformation regarding the pandemic
continued in many other areas. Most notable was selling the lie to the American and
European people that hydroxychloroquine is an unsafe medication. This incredibly safe
medication, which halts SARS-Co-V-2, was rebranded as unsafe in 2020.
This disinformation campaign largely succeeded – until America’s Frontline Doctors
came forward. We revealed four levels of censorship regarding HCQ safety: the
scientists, the media, Big Tech, and the government itself.