Interview with Patrick D. Hahn
On Covid "Vaccines", Schizophrenia, Antidepressants, ADHD and more.
I love investigative journalists, you know, the old school kind. The ones that used to poke holes in Government propaganda.
I especially love scientific investigative journalists. I honestly didn’t know that was a thing until I came across Liam Scheff. And you know how much I love that guy.
Somone that can do deep dives into The Science™ and then resurface to explain the lies and untruths to the rest of us. They are a rare breed of truth teller and a vital part of our ability to resist the technological and scientific information warfare waged on the public by Empire (Governments, Universities, Regulators, Multi-National Corporations, [Fill in the blank]-Industrial Complex…well pretty much everyone).
These men and women don’t get the coverage and attention they deserve. By design obviously, that’s the whole point of censorship.
Anyway, I’m not sure how I came across Patrick Hahn’s book The Day the Science Died.
The Day the Science Died: Covid Vaccines and the Power of Fear: Hahn, Patrick D.
I checked out the Amazon reviews and felt that I had stumbled on a great addition to the truth reporting literature of the GMC (Global Medical Crisis).
I’m really glad that Patrick agreed to an interview because as you will see, I got far more than I had initially bargained for. Patrick has been doing this type of scientific investigation and reporting for some time. By the time he tackled Covid “Vaccines” he was well aware of Industry’s ability and desire to capture, corrupt and more importantly “create markets”.
There are so many gems from Patrick in this interview. I’m going to highlight a few that struck a chord with me:
We are being asked to give up most of the things that make life worth living – including sovereignty over our own bodies – in exchange for a promise of never dying.
All of the things we need to co-exist as a society of intelligent, self-governing men and women came under attack. Work, school, church, love, friendship, entrepreneurship, fresh air, outdoor exercise, verve, joy, spontaneity, the human face – all were relentlessly downgraded. In place we were offered shaming, blaming, snitching, tattling, and a fear that pervaded every aspect of our existence.
Going from writing about antidepressants and stimulants to writing about the covid is like going from swimming laps in a pool to being parachuted into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
So you could have had five shots of the vaccine and still be “unvaccinated.” This is the sort of ridiculous semantic gyration the drugmakers and their captured regulatory agencies have to engage in to make us believe that the shot “saves lives.”
The fundamental and unstated premise behind biological psychiatry seems to be this: society is just fine the way it is, but unfortunately is plagued by all these losers with faulty brains or faulty genes.
The drugmakers take our money and use it to manufacture demand for their product.
But there always has been a natural brake on personal ambition. Everybody wanted a strong nation. Our rulers don’t want that anymore. And in a world in which most of our physical labor (and increasing amounts of our mental labor) are done by machines, many of us have more value to our rulers as consumers of medical interventions than they do as workers.
My vision of health means taking care of the body I was born with, and accepting my mortality.
With thanks to Patrick D. Hahn.
1. What has your personal and professional journey been that led you to become an author and researcher focused on the topics of overmedicalization and medical harm?
I am a university teacher by profession. I have spent the past thirty years teaching undergraduate courses in Biology, including five years teaching in Africa. I have spent my entire career working to make scientific knowledge available to all. I view my work as a science writer as an extension of this role.
In mid-life I became aware of some capacities that were being under-utilized, and so at the preposterously advanced age of fifty-one I enrolled in the Science Writing Program at the Johns Hopkins University, and at the even more preposterously advanced age of fifty-four I walked across the stage and received my second Master’s Degree. Since then it has been quite a ride – four books published in four years by mainstream international publishers.
But the best part of this journey has been the people I have met along the way – the clinicians and scientists who have risen to the tops of their fields and yet retained their essential humanity, and who have been so generous in sharing their time and knowledge with me.
I am not a medical doctor. And while I have never claimed that my degree has given me any authority in these matters, it has given me a perspective which, I believe, is undervalued.
My background is in evolutionary biology, and two things are perfectly obvious to me. One is that our bodies evolved to function, and to function very well indeed. They did not evolve to malfunction. The second is that our bodies evolved to function for a time – and then to die and get the Hell out of the way of the next generation. We are being asked to give up most of the things that make life worth living – including sovereignty over our own bodies – in exchange for a promise of never dying. This transaction deserves perhaps more attention than it has received.
I knew I wanted to write about overmedicalization. I was not specifically interested in psychiatry. But if you wish to write about overmedicalization, psychiatry offers a seemingly endless vein of examples.
My first book, Madness and Genetic Determinism: Is Mental Illness in Our Genes?, was a history of psychiatric genetics, with a focus on schizophrenia, which is generally considered the most severe of all the conditions called “mental illnesses,” and also the one most likely to have a biological or genetic basis. The book was really two books in one. I reviewed the history of psychiatric genetics beginning with the Eighteenth-Century theories of degeneration, through the eras of family studies, twin studies, and adoption studies, all the way through the modern era of genome-wide association studies, and I concluded not only that schizophrenia is not an inherited disorder, but it is also not even a coherent diagnostic category.
This naturally led me to the question: if the complaints that fall under the diagnostic rubric of “schizophrenia” are not inherited, that what does cause them? I found there was a mountain of evidence showing these complaints are caused – notice I didn’t say “triggered,” but “caused” – by child sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and every other category of adverse childhood experience. The correlation is robust, reliable, and dose-dependent. It cuts across national boundaries, ethnic identities, and income brackets. It has been replicated again and again in cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and population-based cohort studies. There can be no doubt – what common sense tells us is correct. Bad things happen, and they can drive you crazy.
This led me to the second part of the book. Since these conditions are caused by social and psychological factors, could they be alleviated by social and psychological interventions? So I went back to the Eighteenth Century and traced the history of the other psychiatry, with its long and rich tradition of treating these conditions we now call mental illnesses with kindness, empathy, and compassion, beginning with Saint Luke’s Hospital in London; continuing through the Nineteenth Century with Phillipe Pinel at the Salpêtrière, Samuel Tuke at the Retreat at York, and Ernst Horn at Charité in Berlin; through the Twentieth Century with Frieda Fromm-Reichmann at Chestnut Lodge, Ronald Lang at Kingsley Hall, and Loren Mosher at Soteria House; and extending all the way up to the present day with Finland’s Open Dialogue Therapy.
My second book was titled Prescription for Sorrow: Antidepressants, Suicide, and Violence. As soon as these drugs were placed on the market, the evidence began accumulating that they cause violence and suicide, and that evidence continues piling up to this day. Plus, these drugs are ferociously addictive, and they don’t even work. The short-term benefits, such as they are, are virtually indistinguishable from those of placebo and can be replicated by any of a variety of nondrug means, with none of the toxic effects. In the long term so-called “antidepressants” cause worsening depression.
My third book was titled Obedience Pills: ADHD and the Medicalization of Childhood. I trace the evolution of the diagnostic category that came to be known as “ADHD” from its origins at the beginning of the Twentieth Century all the way up to the present day, along with the prescription of stimulant drugs for children (and, increasingly, adults) assigned this label. I found that forty-five years of controlled studies have failed to demonstrate any long-term benefits of these drugs. The only long-term effect the researchers were able to demonstrate was that the drugs stunted the kids’ growth – and they didn’t “catch up.”
2. Your recent book "The Day the Science Died: Covid Vaccines and the Power of Fear" delves into the harms caused by COVID-19 vaccines. What prompted you to write this book and what was the most surprising or concerning thing you uncovered in your research?
The coronavirus pandemic – and society’s panicky, scared response to this pandemic – hit the nation and world like a tsunami. All of the things we need to co-exist as a society of intelligent, self-governing men and women came under attack. Work, school, church, love, friendship, entrepreneurship, fresh air, outdoor exercise, verve, joy, spontaneity, the human face – all were relentlessly downgraded. In place we were offered shaming, blaming, snitching, tattling, and a fear that pervaded every aspect of our existence. The very lifeblood of modern medicine – early detection and treatment of illness – was systematically discredited, in favor of experimental shots utilizing a kind of technology never before deployed on a large scale, and literally billions of people were induced or coerced into taking these shots without having any idea of the risks and lack of demonstrated benefits.
This is a crisis which touches on every aspect of our existence. Going from writing about antidepressants and stimulants to writing about the covid is like going from swimming laps in a pool to being parachuted into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
So when David Healy, in a telephone conversation, asked me to write a book about the covid shots, I agreed immediately. This was a project I could sink my teeth into.
I can honestly say that vaccines were not even on my radar before the pandemic began, but all that has changed after hearing the testimony of women and men who were so pro-vax that they volunteered for the covid vaccine trials – or volunteered their children – and suffered devastating consequences as a result. I can also say that my experience in writing about psychopharmaceutical industry has stood me in good stead here. All the dirty tricks I had become familiar with were on display here – arguing from authority, hiding data, confusing a statistically significant result with a clinically relevant one, conflating the effects of a treatment with that of the underlying condition it is purported to treat, and, when all else fails, smearing one’s opponents as Know-Nothings, with Q-Anon standing in for Scientology.
3. The book description mentions the COVID vaccines were "experimental and half-baked jabs." Can you elaborate on what you see as the key problems with how these vaccines were developed and rolled out?
The modified RNA shots were the biggest fraud in vaccine history. They shouldn’t even be called “vaccines.”
These shots were authorized for emergency use based on sequestered data from trials run by three companies, one of which has history going back for decades of hiding data and of arrant disregard for the law and arrant disregard for human life, and the other two which had no products on the market at all before 2020 and now have a single product apiece, with billions and billions of dollars riding on that product.
More importantly, the shots were approved without any clinical benefits being demonstrated at all, for any patient population. The studies did not have an endpoint for transmission. FDA made this clear all the way back in December of 2020. And by August of 2021 it was clear there was no correlation between vaccine coverage and cases. Without that, you cannot even begin to make the case for forcing people to get these shots.
The drugmakers’ did claim their product reduced cases of COVID-19, but that is not a clinically relevant endpoint since, for most people, covid is no more than a cold.
More importantly, that endpoint cannot be believed since the drugmakers DID NOT COUNT ALL THE CASES. We know the shot CAUSES covid in the first 9-21 days after administration. Public Health England, the Danish Ministry of Health, and the BMJ all have stipulated that. These cases were not counted towards the endpoint, nor were any cases arising within twenty-eight days after the first dose of the Pfizer shot, nor within forty-two days after the first dose of the Moderna product. Why these cases should not matter to the patient never was explained.
If you are giving people a preparation that causes covid for a period of time, of course you are going to see a drop in cases after that. Remember that the much-touted figure of “95% effectiveness” translates, in terms of absolute reduction in risk, to one in 141 in the case of the Pfizer shot, or on in 161 in the case of the Moderna product. How much of this paltry reduction in risk was due to this stupid accounting trick? Perhaps all of it? This would seem to be the most parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon of waning immunity – perhaps the shots never were effective at all.
The drugmaker’s answer to the problem of waning immunity is repeated booster shots – even though Moderna’s own study showed the boosters INCREASED the likelihood of re-infection.
This is the most spectacular failure in vaccine history – a “vaccine” that makes you MORE LIKELY to get the index condition.
Faced with irrefutable evidence that the shots do not stop transmission nor prevent cases, the CDC has been reduced to arguing that they reduce the likelihood of covid-related serious illness and death. Even if that be true, what they are describing are not “vaccines” at all, as the term has been understood to mean for more than a century. What they are describing are, at most, therapeutics, which must be administered in advance of the infection, with a limited window of efficacy and a terrible side effects profile. How can we even think of mandating such products?
And again, this endpoint cannot be believed, because these figures plucked from the dashboards of public health agencies charged with enforcing vaccine mandates employ the same stupid accounting trick that got these products authorized for emergency use in the first place – they don’t count any cases arising in the first twenty-eight days after administration of the first dose of the Pfizer shot or the first forty-two days after the first dose of the Moderna product.
And every time you get a booster shot, you miraculously re-join the ranks of the “unvaccinated” for the next seven days in the case of the Pfizer shot, or fourteen days in the case of the Moderna product.
So you could have had five shots of the vaccine and still be “unvaccinated.” This is the sort of ridiculous semantic gyration the drugmakers and their captured regulatory agencies have to engage in to make us believe that the shot “saves lives.”
The drugmakers’ own data show the shot INCREASES the rate of serious adverse events. Trials that were supposed to go on for a full two years were cut short after an average follow-up time of four months. Meanwhile, the CDC’s own analysis of adverse event reports submitted to VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (which they released only in January of 2023, after months and months of stonewalling) showed safety signals for over seven hundred different categories of adverse events. FDA promised to carry out empirical Bayesian data mining of VAERS data, and either they failed to do so or the results are so bad they don’t want us to see them. I’m not sure which is worse.
What do you call a “medicine” that creates more problems than it solves?
A poison.
4. What role do you think fear played in driving the mass adoption of COVID vaccines despite concerning safety signals? How was this fear stoked by public health authorities and the media?
If the drugmakers had not had their modified RNA platform ready to go, and no one had ever heard of SARS-CoV-2, then 2020 would have been – a nasty flu season. Worse than usual, but by no means unprecedented.
But they did have their modified RNA platform, and the drugmakers and their obedient servants in the captured regulatory agencies hit every button they could to inflate the purported death toll. They also inflated the actual death toll, by means of their murderous withholding of safe and effective medicines proven again and again to reduce the rate of serious illness, hospitalization, ventilation, and death.
In the minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) there was not even a suggestion of engaging with people as intelligent, self-governing men and women, with facts and evidence. Instead they recommended fear (“hard-hitting emotional messaging”), guilt (“responsibility to others”) and scapegoating (“social approval”).
The drug-company-funded legacy media took up this message with gusto. Never before in my life had I seen such an outpouring of hate speech as that spewed out against “anti-vaxxers” (a category which now seemingly includes anyone who has any concerns about the safety and effectiveness of any product called a “vaccine”), with journalists, “celebrities,” and ordinary people demanding covid vaccine refusers be deprived of their livelihoods, denied life-saving medical care, and placed under house arrest and left to starve – all for refusing a shot which does not stop transmission, does not stop infection, and which INCREASES the rate of serious adverse events.
I used to wonder how, during the Holocaust, people could so easily be induced to turn so viciously against the very same folks who literally the day before had been their doctors, their pharmacists, their teachers, their neighbors. I no longer wonder this.
5. You recently wrote a series of articles called "The Aftershocks of Pandemic Restrictions: Report from Ghana." What motivated you to travel to Ghana to explore this topic?
I was horrified at the scope and scale of the global assault on hundreds of millions of black and brown children worldwide, purportedly to protect them against a disease which poses virtually no risk to healthy children, at the behest of rich white people in climate-controlled conference rooms thousands of miles away. I spent the four happiest years of my life teaching at the University of Cape Coast in Ghana, and I have family there, so for me Ghana was the ideal venue for first-hand observation.
6. What were some of the most striking impacts of pandemic restrictions and school closures that you observed in Ghana, especially on children?
When I was living in Ghana (and during many subsequent visits) whenever I would walk down the street, little children would call out to me, gleefully reciting the English they learned in school:
Brunyi-How-are you?-I-am-fine-thank-you-and-you?
I didn’t get that this time around. This time the children would linger in the shadows, staring at me dolefully. Something has been taken out of the spirit of these children, and I don’t know when or if they are going to get it back.
7. How did your perspective as an "obrunyi" (foreigner) shape your experience and understanding of the situation in Ghana? Did anything surprise you about the local response to the pandemic?
I don’t think any of the people I talked to are capable of wrapping their minds around what was done to them at the behest of rich white people in climate-controlled conference rooms thousands of miles away. People living in Third world countries desperately want to think of themselves as modern and scientifically-minded, and I don’t think the issue of our rulers using the language of science and the appearance of science to control others is even on their radar.
And the issue isn’t confined just to the modified RNA shots. Just as the tobacco companies are busy colonizing Third World lungs, so too are the pharmaceutical companies busy colonizing Third World brains and bodies. Those of us living in the developed world, who are familiar with the dirty tricks of these gigantic heartless conglomerates, have a responsibility to alert our brothers and sisters in the Third World to the dangers here.
8. Your first book, "Madness and Genetic Determinism: Is Mental Illness in Our Genes?" challenged the idea that mental illnesses are primarily genetic in origin. What do you see as the dangers of viewing psychological distress through an overly biomedical lens?
Even if conditions such as depression, anxiety, mania, and schizophrenia were genetically caused – which they are not – it would not follow logically that they were more amenable to drug treatment than to psychological or social interventions. But it seems safe to say most people probably would think so. In fact, the “experts” openly say in the psychiatric literature that telling people these conditions are genetically-based is a good way to get people to take the drugs, or to give their kids the drugs.
The harms of psychiatric drugs are extraordinarily well-documented. As consumption of these drugs has skyrocketed, so has the proportion of Americans disabled by mental illness, and the suicide rate. This is not what happens when treatments work. Can anyone name a relevant public health outcome that has gotten better as consumption of these drugs has soared?
Perhaps even worse, the emphasis on biological explanations and drug-centered treatments for “mental illness” is a preposterous distraction from addressing the social and psychological factors which make people feel sad, anxious, wrathful, or confused.
The fundamental and unstated premise behind biological psychiatry seems to be this: society is just fine the way it is, but unfortunately is plagued by all these losers with faulty brains or faulty genes.
9. You've also written extensively about the overprescription of psychiatric drugs, especially to children and adolescents. What are some of the key forces driving this trend and what have been the consequences?
That one’s easy. Because some people are making a lot of money from it.
In my book Obedience Pills, I wrote about the nexus of special interests which sustains the ADHD industry: the drug-company-funded key opinion leaders who tout the drugmakers’ wares at professional meetings; the drug-company-funded ghost writers who spin the results of the drugmakers’ trials to make their products appear to be safe and effective; the drug-company-funded “patient advocacy organizations” which serve as tax-deductible advertising agencies for the drugmakers; and the legacy news media addicted to drug company money in a time of plummeting readership and falling advertising revenues.
The thing we need always to keep in mind here is that drug company money means our money. My money. Your money. Fourteen percent of prescription drug costs are paid for out-of-pocket. That means eighty-six percent are paid for by the rest of us. You’re paying through your tax dollars, you’re paying through your insurance premiums, you’re paying through higher prices, and if you are one of America’s tens of millions of “benefits-ineligible” employees (who often are doing the same job as their “benefits-eligible” counterparts, for a fraction of their salaries and no benefits), you’re paying through your surplus labor.
The drugmakers take our money and use it to manufacture demand for their product. How can that not result in our being inundated with useless and dangerous “medicines?”
10. In your book "Prescription for Sorrow: Antidepressants, Suicide and Violence," you detail how antidepressants came to market and have remained widely prescribed despite their risks. Why do you think there has been so much resistance to acknowledging the harms of these drugs?
I’ve already discussed the nexus of special interests which ensures we will be inundated with useless and dangerous medicines. But in the case of so-called “antidepressants” there is an additional factor at work. These drugs are ferociously addictive. Withdrawal from antidepressants can make withdrawal from heroin seem like a walk in the park. Many users who would like to quit find it impossible to do so.
Perhaps even worse: there is evidence from animal models which suggests that these drugs cause changes in developing fetal brains which predispose individuals to depression. In plain English, the drugmakers may be grooming new customers in the womb.
People don’t like to admit their feelings of powerlessness. It’s much easier to pretend that withdrawal effects are symptoms of the underlying depression returning. This looks like a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome: the abused developing positive emotions towards their abusers.
11. Your book "Obedience Pills: ADHD and the Medicalization of Childhood" is described as exploring the "lack of efficacy for the drugs commonly prescribed for the diagnostic category known as 'ADHD.'" What do you think are some better ways of understanding and responding to the behaviors we label as ADHD?
There are a myriad of reasons why a given child might feel distracted or inattentive – hunger, a chaotic or abusive home environment, lack of discipline, lack of outdoor free play time, age-inappropriate expectations… the list goes on and on. Attributing a child’s distraction or inattention to some mythical disease entity and drugging the child is a preposterous distraction from identifying and addressing these problems.
Also, there is a long list of actual medical problems – some of them very serious – which, in a small number of cases, can cause symptoms of “ADHD.” Again, labelling and drugging the child is a preposterous distraction from addressing these actual medical problems.
12. Across your books and articles, you often highlight the corrupting influence of profit motives and commercial interests on medicine and public health. Do you see any positive trends or signs of reform on the horizon?
There are powerful forces arrayed against us. But at what time in history has that not been so?
We live in a strange era. The wealthy and powerful have always been good at looking out for their own interests, pretty much by definition. And they have always been good at generating self-serving nonsense to justify their own power and privilege.
But there always has been a natural brake on personal ambition. Everybody wanted a strong nation. Our rulers don’t want that anymore. And in a world in which most of our physical labor (and increasing amounts of our mental labor) are done by machines, many of us have more value to our rulers as consumers of medical interventions than they do as workers.
I don’t think the One Percent even care about their fellow One Percenters anymore. I think they are just as isolated and atomized as the rest of us. I don’t think they care about anything except maintaining their own privileged stations, and passing those positions on to their children, if they have any.
But with covid, they may finally have overplayed their hand. People are waking up. And as government agencies, multinational organizations, and giant corporations meld into one sinister world-wide conglomerate, a lot of people are realizing that the old dichotomies of liberal/conservative or Right/Left don’t mean a lot anymore. Some seemingly odd bedfellows are coming together as those of us who value human life and works, regardless of our past political identities, are finding one another.
Perhaps we can come together and build institutions and paradigms that operate on a human scale and do a better job of meeting actual human needs. I don’t claim to know all the details of what that would look like, but I am happy to have that conversation with whomever wants to have it.
13. For curious readers concerned about medical harm and overdiagnosis, what practical advice would you offer for navigating the health care system and making informed decisions? What are some trustworthy sources of information?
The best experts are the people who have been harmed and gaslighted by the medical profession and the drug companies.
For my part, as a patient, before I consider taking any medicine, I want to know the answer to two questions: Will it make me less likely to die? And will it make me less likely to have a serious adverse event? And if the answer to both questions is No, why would I consider taking it?
And if the answer is not definitely Yes, that means the answer is No.
I will not to take any drugs for indicators of disease (high blood pressure, LDL levels, triglyceride levels, etc.). This is a one-way ticket to polypharmacy which almost certainly is contributing to the decline in life expectancy that was underway in the developed world long before covid.
The present-day fussy fearful obsession with popping pills and endless screening for signs that can be measured only by trained personnel operating expensive machinery is not what I call health. My vision of health means taking care of the body I was born with, and accepting my mortality.
14. What projects are you currently working on and what topics do you plan to explore in the future? Where can people follow your work and stay up to date on your writings and interviews?
Right now along with some colleagues at the International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP) I am working on a study of National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grants. Something like seventy percent of funding goes to physiological research (genes and/or brains), even though all the billions and billions of dollars we have already poured into this area have yet to yield a single benefit to a single patient in a clinic anywhere in the world – a point the field’s practitioners cheerfully admit, always following up this admission with demands for even more billions.
Meanwhile they are allocating a paltry five percent to psychotherapy and, just as disheartening, nearly half of that is going to explore ways of doing “psychotherapy” on the cheap (i.e., telephone and internet).
It has been an eye-opening experience. One grant application I reviewed proposed to “to investigate the role of frontostriatal glutamatergic metabolism in medication-naive children with ADHD using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 7.0 Tesla.” What in the world is this supposed to tell us about how to teach a child to read? Or how to raise children to grow up to be strong, self-reliant adults? This is an industry that has lost all sight of what it means to be human.
You can follow me on Substack:
For links to all my writing, go to:
Home (patrickhahn.net)
Thank You for Being Part of Our Community
Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.
Discover Our Free Libraries:
Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.
Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.
Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:
I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.
Resources for the Community:
For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.
Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.
Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.
"My vision of health means taking care of the body I was born with, and accepting my mortality."
Best. Statement. Ever.
I am so happy now that we are getting to know the extraordinary humans like Patrick who have risked their lives to do what they knew was the right thing to do for many years before the plandemic. Thankyou to you both for this interview and your dedication to truth.