May 23, 2025 • 18 mins
Our guest is Shaz Khan on her research into vaccines, big pharma and the lack of safety protocols in developing vaccines and distribution.
The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline: A Fact-Packed History of Vaccines and Their Makers
BIO: Shaz Khan, author of The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline: A Fact-Packed History of Vaccines and Their Makers, is a London-born, Swiss-Indian creative designer, information-junkie, and critical thinker, somewhat obsessed with vaccines. She graduated from Central St. Martins College of Art & Design with a BA (Hons) in Product Design and has complemented her education with certifications and courses in nutrition, marketing and communications, anatomy and physiology, and immunobiology and vaccinology.
Her persistent curiosity, along with an inquisitive mind, interest in history, and thirst for knowledge, has expanded her perception and understanding of the world, notably vaccination. After months spent in libraries and national archives, she was disturbed to discover the undisclosed safety history of vaccines and the scope of injuries observed following their administration that were acknowledged by authorities. Her commitment to the truth, freedom, and the preservation of health is the motivation behind this publication.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:10):
All right, we are here, we're back America today and I'm so
happy to have on this woman is is going to open us all up to
the realities of what's happening here.
Shahs Khan, she is the author ofThe Ultimate Vaccine Timeline, a
fact packed history of vaccines and their makers.
And I noticed that your 4 was written by Pierre Judge Corey,
(00:32):
who was an advocate for alternative treatment during
COVID-19, and he was lambasted for it, along with Peter
McCullough and Robert Malone andothers.
So I'm very interested in your book and I started reading some
of it. And thank you so much for
appearing Shaz Khan with me. Welcome, welcome.
Thank you so much for having me,Jim.
Thank you. You know, you started your book
(00:54):
off saying that it was your father who inspired you to write
the book. Can you tell us what that means
and what happened? Well, actually it was my
father's death, but inspired me to go and research vaccines more
because they absolutely weren't on my radar and I had very
little knowledge about vaccines.I just want to make it clear I'm
not a scientist or a doctor and I'm not even a parent, so I
(01:16):
didn't, I didn't actually have the issue of vaccines on my
radar whatsoever. He died about two months after
his flu shot and just there weresome things that just seemed
strange and he was in the UK in the NHS public health system and
he was admitted to hospital withbalance issues and neurological
issues, but he was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer.
But a couple of things that justdidn't add up for me.
And then when I found out that he did received a flu shot about
(01:39):
two months before his death, I started ask, I started ask
myself questions. I was like, hang on a minute.
If he had stage 4 cancer alreadytwo months after at this point
he would have already been pretty sick and he shouldn't
have received the vaccine. That's my understanding if you
don't give a vaccine to sick people.
And I very quickly just found the package inserts for the
vaccine. I didn't know exactly what brand
(01:59):
he had so I checked up as many food shops package inserts I
could find and saw that neurological damage was actually
quite acknowledged and that justasked me.
I I got to asking more questions, started reading books
and then started going to the libraries and trying to find
historical data on when were these neurological issues first
recognized after what vaccine. So it was it was really his
(02:21):
death was a trigger basically toan obsession of just asking
myself a question. I never planned to write a book
on this, but more and more information I uncovered in the
libraries, the more I realized, hey, this is important that I
need to share this because I mean, correct me if I'm wrong,
but I, I, I haven't come across any other book apart from Doctor
Suzanne Humphreys and Roman histrionics book Dissolving
(02:41):
Illusions. But other than that, there's not
many books that that really delve deep into the history of
vaccine. So I thought, OK, well I found
out all this information. I should put it in a format that
people can then use as a reference and also for the
actual Pharmaceutical industry because again, that was quite
convoluted when you look at the history of the Pharmaceutical
industry and have been mergers and acquisitions.
(03:02):
So I actually initially started with that timeline and then
decided to do that for vaccines as well. 11 description of your
book is this book impressively organizes the history of
vaccines from both an industry and public health perspective
all in one visually stunning timeline.
Seeing serious reactions in my patients and my own family.
It was inspired and this this issomeone who wrote a comment on
(03:26):
your book. I was inspired to research
vaccines to determine which worth which were the risk to
keep my children safe. Now you're not, it sounds to me
like you, you're not an anti vaxxer or what we would you know
what commonly people get brandedat when they start questioning
the efficacy. And and like you, I had a lot of
(03:47):
questions about everything that happened during the COVID-19
pandemic and it all seemed wrong.
I mean, everything from censoring and suppression of
debate of, of taking doctors licenses and their ability to
practice away. It seemed overtly strange that
we were all of the sudden each of us faced with this decision
(04:10):
that we had to get something. Then we of course learn later,
and we're still discovering thatCOVID-19 was actually developed
by scientists working with our NIH.
And so that becomes sort of a strange oddity.
All. Right.
So in your book, when you go back 1500 years, Shahs, what's
the common thread that you're seeing as brief as you can, What
(04:32):
were you? What were you in in your
research when you started looking at vaccines and the
whole the whole process? I think if I take a step back
now with, with hindsight and look at what the common thread
was between all the, the, all that was happening from as early
as on, there's like the 1700s tothe 1800s when we started
vaccinating against smallpox vaccine to today with our mRNA
(04:54):
vaccine technology. I wouldn't actually call it a
vaccine. Is the is, is the power of the,
the Pharmaceutical industry? There are links to government,
there are links to academic institutions and how policy has
been, I would say kind of drafted in favor of what they
would say is innovation. Obviously we want to get new
medical products on the market, but this has allowed the
(05:16):
Pharmaceutical industry to proceed with very little
precaution. And obviously in the US when you
had the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, that
basically gave a pass to the Pharmaceutical industry to
develop even more vaccines. And the minute they go onto the
schedule, we'll we know that there are protected from any
kind of lawsuit from the public there, there are any injuries
covered actually by the taxpayer.
(05:36):
And this is actually a very similar situation in many
countries. Even here in Switzerland, it's a
taxpayer that covers any injuries by vaccines.
And then mixed also with the 1980 Bay Doyle Act you have in
the US where public funding can be used to develop products then
can be patent and to license. That's just as basically given a
(05:58):
huge amount of power and I wouldsay academic power to the
Pharmaceutical industry to use public money to develop products
they then can benefit and charges for.
So it's been this, this the the tentacles that they have now
everywhere in industry and academics and in here in
Switzerland, the Pharmaceutical industry obviously is very
important and they fund a lot ofthe academic research going on
(06:20):
in our University Hospitals as well as universities.
So it's very incestuous and thathas allowed the Pharmaceutical
industry to get this kind of power that they have now where
they're everywhere. I mean, we know the power of the
lobby. We know that they have things
out there, the conflicts of interest within politics.
Living here in Switzerland, again, I take that example
because that's where I'm at. Politicians don't even have to
(06:40):
declare if they've received money from the Pharmaceutical
industry and our FDA equivalent with medic, pretty much all the
top people will come from the Pharmaceutical industry.
So we also have a, a less maybe drastic case of revolving doors
as you have in the States, but it's still a similar issue.
So it's, it's really for maybe, you know, a good place.
Like I would consider myself notan anti vaxxer, but an X Factor
(07:02):
because I, I have received many vaccines in my life, especially
the travel vaccine. And I wouldn't receive any now
because I simply don't trust thedata and the scientific
information that has released bythe pharmaceutical companies,
which is what we mainly receivedbefore licensing of a vaccine.
It's not like there's any independent research to check if
it's really efficacious, if it'sreally safe.
(07:23):
And then you look at their endpoints of what they define as
efficacious and it's, it's quiteconcerning.
So try if just added. Another point which is
interesting is in all this history of vaccines, one thing
that hasn't really changed much,even though our technology is
much more sophisticated. It's the basic principle, which
is the principle of inserting a controlled in, in a controlled
manner, a substance to prevent you from getting an infectious
(07:43):
disease, which obviously we now we say is the antibodies that
protect you. That that concept really hasn't
changed in in like the course of1000 years.
I am going to play devil's advocate.
If you just joined us, we're talking with Shaz Khan.
She's written a book called The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline, where
you use data to show, going all the way back, about how the
evolution of the Pharmaceutical industry has grown and evolved
(08:07):
and the role of vaccines have played in it.
What is the most concerning thing that you discovered when
you were gathering all this data?
Quite simply, the lack of safetydata, it's really quite basic,
but the lack of safety data on vaccines before they come to
market and considering we give them to healthy children,
especially in the states, they give them the birth with the
(08:27):
hepatitis B vaccine, there is very, very little sufficient
security testing. I mean, for example, vaccines do
not have to go through the same safety testing as
pharmaceuticals. Now we're reassured by
government institutions that they're rigorously tested, even
more so because they're given tohealthy people.
But when you look at the data, that's not actually the case.
There's no carcinogenicity studies for vaccines.
(08:49):
There are no, the toxicity studies are very, very minimal,
I would say, and on very few animals and even fewer humans
and carcinogenicity. So the, the possibility of
mutations to be caused, the, thepossibility of cancer and the
possible fertility issues, this is, this is not tested prior to
(09:10):
licensure. And that for me was what stuck
out like a sore thumb because I,I was very trusting that the,
the government more than the Pharmaceutical industry,
obviously. But the government, I was, when
they said that the vaccine was safe and effective, I believed
it. But when I looked into the data
and so how they determine safetyand how they determine even
efficacy, just it raised a lot of red flags for me.
You're listening to America Today with Jim Watkins.
(09:32):
You were talking about the efficacy.
You know, this is something thatis is leaking out.
Now we're finding out that Pfizer and Moderna and all these
major pharmaceutical companies were coming out with these
vaccines for COVID and we're learning through the efforts of
people like Robert Kennedy Junior of all people that these
you're right, there were not rigorous testings made in many
(09:54):
cases, many test results were ignored.
If I was shocked that our mainstream media wasn't
reporting on all of these things.
We have big pharma running ads all the time.
That's actually illegal in in Europe, but is it illegal in
Switzerland too? Do they advertise drugs in
Switzerland? They do.
They're not allowed to advertisedrugs which need prescription.
(10:16):
I believe the US and New Zealandare the only two countries are
allowed to advertise prescription drugs, including
vaccine. So we don't have that insurance,
but we do have a very powerful Pharmaceutical industry that has
its tentacles and media for sure.
Tell me how powerful these big pharma, how much money are they
making and. That's a good question, but
obviously I can't on the top of my head tell you how much the
(10:36):
Pharmaceutical industry is worth.
But I know the vaccine makers specifically, I think 2022, for
instance, our sales represented over 600 billion worldwide in
dollars. I know here in system the lobby
for pharmaceutical companies, they're they have a private
lobby. They don't like the the other
industries, the, you know, appliances and you know, Electro
(10:58):
telecommunications. They usually have a lobby where
they're all kind of together. But pharmaceuticals are separate
here. Rush which they don't make
vaccines, but they made some creature and COVID.
They were one of the main producers of the PCR test.
They, I think their annual revenue is also in the 10s of
billions, if not more. And uh, the Swiss government is
already very protective of theseeconomical interests because
(11:20):
pharmaceutical drugs is one of our main exports as well.
So it's very powerful. You know, many people don't
remember, but the PCR test to mewas the gateway for the media to
be able to scare the American public into getting a
vaccination because the PCR tests themselves were often
unreliable. I remember one report saying
that they were only what, 40% reliable?
(11:43):
Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, I guess here in
Switzerland, we were basing our,the protocol of the Christine
Justin or he basically publisheda paper in, in February where he
was saying that we could use up up to and even over 40 cycles
threshold the CT, which basically when you're using that
high of a threshold, you get a lot of just false positives.
(12:04):
And, and most people when they're talking about, you know,
confirming the presence of a virus, it will be around 26
cycles. But they were able to amplify
this, this illusion of having loads of cases and people who
didn't have symptoms, as I wouldsay, as you mentioned, to ramp
up the fear, because the, the main thing was cases.
We weren't talking about people hospitalized.
(12:25):
We weren't talking about deaths in the beginning.
We're just talking about cases. So it allowed that illusion of
having loads and loads of cases with a test that really wasn't
adequate to do so. I mean, even the inventor of
that test, Terry Muller said that it wasn't designed to
diagnose. It could be used in complement
with medial clinical diagnosis. But it's certainly shouldn't be
used alone. And that was what was being
pushed, I think, in pretty much every country, especially the
(12:47):
Western countries, Switzerland included.
I mean, for an example, Switzerland spent over 4 billion
Swiss francs on testing between 2020 and 2020.
Two public money. By the way, so they were
obviously testing for COVID, butthe question is what were they
really showing? They were just showing probably
artifacts of of maybe even a previous viral infection, but it
(13:08):
certainly couldn't show if someone was actively infected
with A to the virus that was going to make someone sick.
What about the post effect of the COVID vaccine?
A big pharma is again sort of obfuscating the truth.
They don't report that there have been at least 38,000 post
vaccination deaths. Equal number of permanent
(13:29):
disabilities. I know several people who have
been disabled. My one of my oldest friends,
after multiple vaccinations, they developed an autoimmune
disorder. You can't have a conversation
with your doctor about it because the doctors have been
told that these vaccines are safe.
It isn't that. Part of the problem here is that
the doctors themselves have beenused as tools to perpetuate the
(13:52):
whole vaccine industry. They're not allowed to to
question. Absolutely.
I mean, I guess the same situation in the US, but here in
Switzerland as well. And people like to think that
we're very, you know, a democratic country and that
there's freedom here, et cetera.But the doctors here in
Switzerland were very much put under pressure.
And even we had the same lettersgoing out from February 2020
(14:14):
where doctors were being dissuaded from using
hydroxychloroquine for using anyuntested treatments.
But they were saying even thoughhydroxychloroquine is known to
be safer for over 40 years and there were threatening doctors
who did use it, even though it was never illegal, they made
sure that pharmacists could block certain prescriptions and
they would threaten doctors withwith with threats of sanctions.
(14:34):
Now, I don't know any doctors that actually were sanctioned
because again, it wasn't illegal, but they were trying to
really dissuade it as much as possible.
And again, doctors here, they'rethey're kind of protected if
they follow the government, but then they're not protected if
they don't. So if they, they have to have a
courageous Dr. like, you know, Pierre Corey and Pierre
McCullough and Paul Merrick, whowill be willing to step outside
(14:57):
the comfort zone and actually treat their patients and, and
basically not care about what the the medical board is going
to do to them or try to do to them.
But unfortunately also insurancecompanies.
That's why I was saying before, pharmaceutical company has its
tentacles everywhere. And unfortunately, a lot of the
pressure that we saw during COVID put on doctors was just,
it put them in a very difficult situation because you'd have to
(15:19):
basically risk giving up your practice to be able to just
treat patients. But when you wanted to, I know
in the states, I think certain states were probably more
lenient than others. This wasn't the case in
Switzerland. We had a basically a uniform
kind of attitude across Switzerland, even though some of
the smaller cantons, I think didwhat they wanted regardless.
But they had a lot of pressure and a lot of threat, which made
(15:40):
it very suspicious because the doctors who are very trusting of
the government beforehand lost alot of trust because like, this
is the first time they would haven't been allowed to treat
patients, which is unheard of. Like, you know, if there's
especially the pandemic going around, you want to be able to
treat patients early if you don't go to hospital.
And we had kind of the opposite suggestions where I always don't
treat the patients and if you can't breathe, then go to
(16:02):
hospital. Yeah, which makes no sense.
You must be concerned about thisnew treaty that was signed a few
days ago, sponsored by the WorldHealth Organization.
Tell me a little bit about what that means.
The implications and the implications are pretty dire.
Yeah. Well, it'll be the first health
related treaty that Switzerland would approve if if they did
ratify it because obviously it'sbeen signed by The Who
(16:22):
delegates, but it has to go through the process of
ratification in each end of country and Switzerland.
Anyway, we have our epidemic score, which has been in place
since the late 1918 eighties, and that they've already been
talking about revising since 2021.
And that, I think for Switzerland is the main thing
because they've been aligning itto the modifications made on the
international health regulationsthat were approved last year.
(16:45):
And I guess they're going to nowalign it with the new elements
that have been brought under thepandemic treaty, notably like
the pathogen. Ask us benefit sharing system,
contact tracing, the fight on misinformation, all these kinds
of causes. We're paying close attention to
see what the Swiss government isgoing to do with regards to the
revision of epidemics law, and Iimagine some countries have a
(17:07):
similar situation. Others won't even have the
possibility of voting against it.
So we'll see. Probably in 2026 because even
though the pandemic treaty is being signed, I don't believe
will be implemented before 2027.Shahs Khan has been with me and
I'm I'm going to have you back because I want to delve into
children vaccine schedules. We don't have time to talk about
(17:28):
that this time. I encourage listeners to get the
book. You can buy it on Amazon.
I just checking it out there, the ultimate vaccine timeline, a
fact packed history of vaccines and their makers.
You need to read it. If you're a doctor, you need to
read this. This is data.
This isn't someone's opinion. Shahs Khan, I really appreciate
(17:49):
you being on the program today and I look forward to our next
conversation. Well.
Thank you, Jim, so much for having me.
Thank you so much. This episode of America Today
with Jim Watkins is brought to you by Southwest Florida
dreamhome.com. Let the journey begin.
Southwest Florida dreamhome.com.
All right, we are here, we're back America today and I'm so
happy to have on this woman is is going to open us all up to
the realities of what's happening here.
Shahs Khan, she is the author ofThe Ultimate Vaccine Timeline, a
fact packed history of vaccines and their makers.
And I noticed that your 4 was written by Pierre Judge Corey,
(00:32):
who was an advocate for alternative treatment during
COVID-19, and he was lambasted for it, along with Peter
McCullough and Robert Malone andothers.
So I'm very interested in your book and I started reading some
of it. And thank you so much for
appearing Shaz Khan with me. Welcome, welcome.
Thank you so much for having me,Jim.
Thank you. You know, you started your book
(00:54):
off saying that it was your father who inspired you to write
the book. Can you tell us what that means
and what happened? Well, actually it was my
father's death, but inspired me to go and research vaccines more
because they absolutely weren't on my radar and I had very
little knowledge about vaccines.I just want to make it clear I'm
not a scientist or a doctor and I'm not even a parent, so I
(01:16):
didn't, I didn't actually have the issue of vaccines on my
radar whatsoever. He died about two months after
his flu shot and just there weresome things that just seemed
strange and he was in the UK in the NHS public health system and
he was admitted to hospital withbalance issues and neurological
issues, but he was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer.
But a couple of things that justdidn't add up for me.
And then when I found out that he did received a flu shot about
(01:39):
two months before his death, I started ask, I started ask
myself questions. I was like, hang on a minute.
If he had stage 4 cancer alreadytwo months after at this point
he would have already been pretty sick and he shouldn't
have received the vaccine. That's my understanding if you
don't give a vaccine to sick people.
And I very quickly just found the package inserts for the
vaccine. I didn't know exactly what brand
(01:59):
he had so I checked up as many food shops package inserts I
could find and saw that neurological damage was actually
quite acknowledged and that justasked me.
I I got to asking more questions, started reading books
and then started going to the libraries and trying to find
historical data on when were these neurological issues first
recognized after what vaccine. So it was it was really his
(02:21):
death was a trigger basically toan obsession of just asking
myself a question. I never planned to write a book
on this, but more and more information I uncovered in the
libraries, the more I realized, hey, this is important that I
need to share this because I mean, correct me if I'm wrong,
but I, I, I haven't come across any other book apart from Doctor
Suzanne Humphreys and Roman histrionics book Dissolving
(02:41):
Illusions. But other than that, there's not
many books that that really delve deep into the history of
vaccine. So I thought, OK, well I found
out all this information. I should put it in a format that
people can then use as a reference and also for the
actual Pharmaceutical industry because again, that was quite
convoluted when you look at the history of the Pharmaceutical
industry and have been mergers and acquisitions.
(03:02):
So I actually initially started with that timeline and then
decided to do that for vaccines as well. 11 description of your
book is this book impressively organizes the history of
vaccines from both an industry and public health perspective
all in one visually stunning timeline.
Seeing serious reactions in my patients and my own family.
It was inspired and this this issomeone who wrote a comment on
(03:26):
your book. I was inspired to research
vaccines to determine which worth which were the risk to
keep my children safe. Now you're not, it sounds to me
like you, you're not an anti vaxxer or what we would you know
what commonly people get brandedat when they start questioning
the efficacy. And and like you, I had a lot of
(03:47):
questions about everything that happened during the COVID-19
pandemic and it all seemed wrong.
I mean, everything from censoring and suppression of
debate of, of taking doctors licenses and their ability to
practice away. It seemed overtly strange that
we were all of the sudden each of us faced with this decision
(04:10):
that we had to get something. Then we of course learn later,
and we're still discovering thatCOVID-19 was actually developed
by scientists working with our NIH.
And so that becomes sort of a strange oddity.
All. Right.
So in your book, when you go back 1500 years, Shahs, what's
the common thread that you're seeing as brief as you can, What
(04:32):
were you? What were you in in your
research when you started looking at vaccines and the
whole the whole process? I think if I take a step back
now with, with hindsight and look at what the common thread
was between all the, the, all that was happening from as early
as on, there's like the 1700s tothe 1800s when we started
vaccinating against smallpox vaccine to today with our mRNA
(04:54):
vaccine technology. I wouldn't actually call it a
vaccine. Is the is, is the power of the,
the Pharmaceutical industry? There are links to government,
there are links to academic institutions and how policy has
been, I would say kind of drafted in favor of what they
would say is innovation. Obviously we want to get new
medical products on the market, but this has allowed the
(05:16):
Pharmaceutical industry to proceed with very little
precaution. And obviously in the US when you
had the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, that
basically gave a pass to the Pharmaceutical industry to
develop even more vaccines. And the minute they go onto the
schedule, we'll we know that there are protected from any
kind of lawsuit from the public there, there are any injuries
covered actually by the taxpayer.
(05:36):
And this is actually a very similar situation in many
countries. Even here in Switzerland, it's a
taxpayer that covers any injuries by vaccines.
And then mixed also with the 1980 Bay Doyle Act you have in
the US where public funding can be used to develop products then
can be patent and to license. That's just as basically given a
(05:58):
huge amount of power and I wouldsay academic power to the
Pharmaceutical industry to use public money to develop products
they then can benefit and charges for.
So it's been this, this the the tentacles that they have now
everywhere in industry and academics and in here in
Switzerland, the Pharmaceutical industry obviously is very
important and they fund a lot ofthe academic research going on
(06:20):
in our University Hospitals as well as universities.
So it's very incestuous and thathas allowed the Pharmaceutical
industry to get this kind of power that they have now where
they're everywhere. I mean, we know the power of the
lobby. We know that they have things
out there, the conflicts of interest within politics.
Living here in Switzerland, again, I take that example
because that's where I'm at. Politicians don't even have to
(06:40):
declare if they've received money from the Pharmaceutical
industry and our FDA equivalent with medic, pretty much all the
top people will come from the Pharmaceutical industry.
So we also have a, a less maybe drastic case of revolving doors
as you have in the States, but it's still a similar issue.
So it's, it's really for maybe, you know, a good place.
Like I would consider myself notan anti vaxxer, but an X Factor
(07:02):
because I, I have received many vaccines in my life, especially
the travel vaccine. And I wouldn't receive any now
because I simply don't trust thedata and the scientific
information that has released bythe pharmaceutical companies,
which is what we mainly receivedbefore licensing of a vaccine.
It's not like there's any independent research to check if
it's really efficacious, if it'sreally safe.
(07:23):
And then you look at their endpoints of what they define as
efficacious and it's, it's quiteconcerning.
So try if just added. Another point which is
interesting is in all this history of vaccines, one thing
that hasn't really changed much,even though our technology is
much more sophisticated. It's the basic principle, which
is the principle of inserting a controlled in, in a controlled
manner, a substance to prevent you from getting an infectious
(07:43):
disease, which obviously we now we say is the antibodies that
protect you. That that concept really hasn't
changed in in like the course of1000 years.
I am going to play devil's advocate.
If you just joined us, we're talking with Shaz Khan.
She's written a book called The Ultimate Vaccine Timeline, where
you use data to show, going all the way back, about how the
evolution of the Pharmaceutical industry has grown and evolved
(08:07):
and the role of vaccines have played in it.
What is the most concerning thing that you discovered when
you were gathering all this data?
Quite simply, the lack of safetydata, it's really quite basic,
but the lack of safety data on vaccines before they come to
market and considering we give them to healthy children,
especially in the states, they give them the birth with the
(08:27):
hepatitis B vaccine, there is very, very little sufficient
security testing. I mean, for example, vaccines do
not have to go through the same safety testing as
pharmaceuticals. Now we're reassured by
government institutions that they're rigorously tested, even
more so because they're given tohealthy people.
But when you look at the data, that's not actually the case.
There's no carcinogenicity studies for vaccines.
(08:49):
There are no, the toxicity studies are very, very minimal,
I would say, and on very few animals and even fewer humans
and carcinogenicity. So the, the possibility of
mutations to be caused, the, thepossibility of cancer and the
possible fertility issues, this is, this is not tested prior to
(09:10):
licensure. And that for me was what stuck
out like a sore thumb because I,I was very trusting that the,
the government more than the Pharmaceutical industry,
obviously. But the government, I was, when
they said that the vaccine was safe and effective, I believed
it. But when I looked into the data
and so how they determine safetyand how they determine even
efficacy, just it raised a lot of red flags for me.
You're listening to America Today with Jim Watkins.
(09:32):
You were talking about the efficacy.
You know, this is something thatis is leaking out.
Now we're finding out that Pfizer and Moderna and all these
major pharmaceutical companies were coming out with these
vaccines for COVID and we're learning through the efforts of
people like Robert Kennedy Junior of all people that these
you're right, there were not rigorous testings made in many
(09:54):
cases, many test results were ignored.
If I was shocked that our mainstream media wasn't
reporting on all of these things.
We have big pharma running ads all the time.
That's actually illegal in in Europe, but is it illegal in
Switzerland too? Do they advertise drugs in
Switzerland? They do.
They're not allowed to advertisedrugs which need prescription.
(10:16):
I believe the US and New Zealandare the only two countries are
allowed to advertise prescription drugs, including
vaccine. So we don't have that insurance,
but we do have a very powerful Pharmaceutical industry that has
its tentacles and media for sure.
Tell me how powerful these big pharma, how much money are they
making and. That's a good question, but
obviously I can't on the top of my head tell you how much the
(10:36):
Pharmaceutical industry is worth.
But I know the vaccine makers specifically, I think 2022, for
instance, our sales represented over 600 billion worldwide in
dollars. I know here in system the lobby
for pharmaceutical companies, they're they have a private
lobby. They don't like the the other
industries, the, you know, appliances and you know, Electro
(10:58):
telecommunications. They usually have a lobby where
they're all kind of together. But pharmaceuticals are separate
here. Rush which they don't make
vaccines, but they made some creature and COVID.
They were one of the main producers of the PCR test.
They, I think their annual revenue is also in the 10s of
billions, if not more. And uh, the Swiss government is
already very protective of theseeconomical interests because
(11:20):
pharmaceutical drugs is one of our main exports as well.
So it's very powerful. You know, many people don't
remember, but the PCR test to mewas the gateway for the media to
be able to scare the American public into getting a
vaccination because the PCR tests themselves were often
unreliable. I remember one report saying
that they were only what, 40% reliable?
(11:43):
Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, I guess here in
Switzerland, we were basing our,the protocol of the Christine
Justin or he basically publisheda paper in, in February where he
was saying that we could use up up to and even over 40 cycles
threshold the CT, which basically when you're using that
high of a threshold, you get a lot of just false positives.
(12:04):
And, and most people when they're talking about, you know,
confirming the presence of a virus, it will be around 26
cycles. But they were able to amplify
this, this illusion of having loads of cases and people who
didn't have symptoms, as I wouldsay, as you mentioned, to ramp
up the fear, because the, the main thing was cases.
We weren't talking about people hospitalized.
(12:25):
We weren't talking about deaths in the beginning.
We're just talking about cases. So it allowed that illusion of
having loads and loads of cases with a test that really wasn't
adequate to do so. I mean, even the inventor of
that test, Terry Muller said that it wasn't designed to
diagnose. It could be used in complement
with medial clinical diagnosis. But it's certainly shouldn't be
used alone. And that was what was being
pushed, I think, in pretty much every country, especially the
(12:47):
Western countries, Switzerland included.
I mean, for an example, Switzerland spent over 4 billion
Swiss francs on testing between 2020 and 2020.
Two public money. By the way, so they were
obviously testing for COVID, butthe question is what were they
really showing? They were just showing probably
artifacts of of maybe even a previous viral infection, but it
(13:08):
certainly couldn't show if someone was actively infected
with A to the virus that was going to make someone sick.
What about the post effect of the COVID vaccine?
A big pharma is again sort of obfuscating the truth.
They don't report that there have been at least 38,000 post
vaccination deaths. Equal number of permanent
(13:29):
disabilities. I know several people who have
been disabled. My one of my oldest friends,
after multiple vaccinations, they developed an autoimmune
disorder. You can't have a conversation
with your doctor about it because the doctors have been
told that these vaccines are safe.
It isn't that. Part of the problem here is that
the doctors themselves have beenused as tools to perpetuate the
(13:52):
whole vaccine industry. They're not allowed to to
question. Absolutely.
I mean, I guess the same situation in the US, but here in
Switzerland as well. And people like to think that
we're very, you know, a democratic country and that
there's freedom here, et cetera.But the doctors here in
Switzerland were very much put under pressure.
And even we had the same lettersgoing out from February 2020
(14:14):
where doctors were being dissuaded from using
hydroxychloroquine for using anyuntested treatments.
But they were saying even thoughhydroxychloroquine is known to
be safer for over 40 years and there were threatening doctors
who did use it, even though it was never illegal, they made
sure that pharmacists could block certain prescriptions and
they would threaten doctors withwith with threats of sanctions.
(14:34):
Now, I don't know any doctors that actually were sanctioned
because again, it wasn't illegal, but they were trying to
really dissuade it as much as possible.
And again, doctors here, they'rethey're kind of protected if
they follow the government, but then they're not protected if
they don't. So if they, they have to have a
courageous Dr. like, you know, Pierre Corey and Pierre
McCullough and Paul Merrick, whowill be willing to step outside
(14:57):
the comfort zone and actually treat their patients and, and
basically not care about what the the medical board is going
to do to them or try to do to them.
But unfortunately also insurancecompanies.
That's why I was saying before, pharmaceutical company has its
tentacles everywhere. And unfortunately, a lot of the
pressure that we saw during COVID put on doctors was just,
it put them in a very difficult situation because you'd have to
(15:19):
basically risk giving up your practice to be able to just
treat patients. But when you wanted to, I know
in the states, I think certain states were probably more
lenient than others. This wasn't the case in
Switzerland. We had a basically a uniform
kind of attitude across Switzerland, even though some of
the smaller cantons, I think didwhat they wanted regardless.
But they had a lot of pressure and a lot of threat, which made
(15:40):
it very suspicious because the doctors who are very trusting of
the government beforehand lost alot of trust because like, this
is the first time they would haven't been allowed to treat
patients, which is unheard of. Like, you know, if there's
especially the pandemic going around, you want to be able to
treat patients early if you don't go to hospital.
And we had kind of the opposite suggestions where I always don't
treat the patients and if you can't breathe, then go to
(16:02):
hospital. Yeah, which makes no sense.
You must be concerned about thisnew treaty that was signed a few
days ago, sponsored by the WorldHealth Organization.
Tell me a little bit about what that means.
The implications and the implications are pretty dire.
Yeah. Well, it'll be the first health
related treaty that Switzerland would approve if if they did
ratify it because obviously it'sbeen signed by The Who
(16:22):
delegates, but it has to go through the process of
ratification in each end of country and Switzerland.
Anyway, we have our epidemic score, which has been in place
since the late 1918 eighties, and that they've already been
talking about revising since 2021.
And that, I think for Switzerland is the main thing
because they've been aligning itto the modifications made on the
international health regulationsthat were approved last year.
(16:45):
And I guess they're going to nowalign it with the new elements
that have been brought under thepandemic treaty, notably like
the pathogen. Ask us benefit sharing system,
contact tracing, the fight on misinformation, all these kinds
of causes. We're paying close attention to
see what the Swiss government isgoing to do with regards to the
revision of epidemics law, and Iimagine some countries have a
(17:07):
similar situation. Others won't even have the
possibility of voting against it.
So we'll see. Probably in 2026 because even
though the pandemic treaty is being signed, I don't believe
will be implemented before 2027.Shahs Khan has been with me and
I'm I'm going to have you back because I want to delve into
children vaccine schedules. We don't have time to talk about
(17:28):
that this time. I encourage listeners to get the
book. You can buy it on Amazon.
I just checking it out there, the ultimate vaccine timeline, a
fact packed history of vaccines and their makers.
You need to read it. If you're a doctor, you need to
read this. This is data.
This isn't someone's opinion. Shahs Khan, I really appreciate
(17:49):
you being on the program today and I look forward to our next
conversation. Well.
Thank you, Jim, so much for having me.
Thank you so much. This episode of America Today
with Jim Watkins is brought to you by Southwest Florida
dreamhome.com. Let the journey begin.
Southwest Florida dreamhome.com.
Host
JIM WATKINS
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.