search icon
Live chat

Dr. Mobeen Syed: Pandemic Destruction and the Emergence of Anti-Antibodies

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “It becomes scarier the more you learn about it and the more new studies are coming up. Instead of making it better, every new study demonstrates some new alarming outcome.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Mobeen Syed, also known as DrBeen, noticed there was a lack of unbiased, accessible information about both the virus and the vaccine. Using his skills as a physician and software engineer, he started making simple online medical lectures and illustrations about COVID. Today, he has over 1,000 videos and tens of millions of views on his YouTube channel.

“We found that spike protein for mRNA was present in mothers’ breast milk, which means the lipid nanoparticle traveled all the way to the breast tissue, and that means everywhere,” explains Dr. Syed. “Breast milk is produced when you take a cell and you take one-third of the cell and pinch it off, and that becomes milk. So whatever is inside the cell is donated to the baby. So, the mother really gives a part of her body to the baby. So now, if the mRNA is sitting in there, it actually goes in the breast milk. This was a fascinating new discovery for me.”

Dr. Syed says that while he tries to focus only on the medical outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the associated politics, he is disturbed by the political and financial elements, and is worried that if another pandemic occurs, our response to it will be the same.

“If a simple doctor like me, who is only reading the studies, can infer that the vaccine’s design should change, the receptor motif should be removed so that we don’t end up with anti-ACE2 antibodies, don’t you think that the people who are more capable and are in this field and in this profession of virology and vaccinology—they would know it better? That lack of interest? That baffles me,” says Dr. Syed.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:
Dr. Mobeen Syed such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Dr. Mobeen Syed:
Thank you very much for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:
I’ve learned quite a lot from your videos, which have become quite popular, looking at pathways of pathogenesis, looking at a whole range of things related to medicine. Things which are rather complicated for people, you visualize in a simple way. How did you become a doodler of such things in your videos?

Dr. Syed:
This is a very interesting question. Before the Covid pandemic, I was teaching for decades. I used to draw better, but was not a doodler as you see me doing today. When the pandemic hit, we all figured out how we could contribute better. During the pandemic, it became very important that we bring our message of clarity in medicine to the general public, because the whole world was stuck in this evil time, and everybody needed this knowledge. I had to figure out some way of presenting that was simple and easy, and still have a message that was understandable.

Mr. Jekielek:
Let me just jump in for a moment. You said there was this evil time. When did you realize this was an evil time?

Dr. Syed:
I saw the transmission speed of this when we had SARS-CoV-1, which also is an ACE2-binding virus, and when we had MERS-CoV as well. They both had tiny epidemics or pandemics, they were actually international. One was 8,500, the other was 2,500. If you looked at SARS-CoV-2 with the rapidity and the destruction that it started causing, and the way it started crossing borders, it was very evident that we were in trouble. I became alerted when somebody sent me a WhatsApp message.

Remember there were so many rumors and weird messages. There was a message from a Japanese scientist which said, “You should take steam.” A Stanford scientist had said, “Drink tea and you will become okay,” and so on. Somebody sent that to me and said, “Should I start doing this?” I responded to them and said, “This would kill you if you did this.” I thought I should discuss it with other people as well. That is how the severity and the criticality of the issue became evident, and it only became worse from then on.

Mr. Jekielek:
It turned out with data early on that the pandemic was a lot less severe than people believed.

Dr. Syed:
But the spread was very fast.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right. Is this what you wanted to alert people to?

Dr. Syed:
Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:
Fascinating.

Dr. Syed:
The more interesting part for me was that the pathogenesis of this virus was so different. Have we ever seen a virus that just jumps up and then involves a whole world so fast like a wildfire? We have not. It was important for all of us to understand this part of the medicine; how the immune system works, how the viruses work, why this virus is so unique, and what is happening. That’s how I became a doodler in my videos.

Mr. Jekielek:
What makes this virus unique? This question is subject to debate even today.

Dr. Syed:
Absolutely.

Mr. Jekielek:
By medical professionals?

Dr. Syed:
Absolutely, yes. There’s so much hot debate about why this virus is this way. Is it designed? Is it the natural evolution of the virus that somehow it reached this point? I’ll give you some ideas. SARS-CoV-1 was the cousin of this virus, which binds with ACE2. In 2002, about 8,500 people were affected. MERS-CoV, Middle East Respiratory virus affected 2,500 people in 2012, and used a receptor called DPP4. SARS-CoV-1 uses ACE2.

SARS-CoV-2 uses ACE2 as well, so there is a comparison there. However, the destruction it causes is very different from SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 actually had a higher case fatality rate, and that binds with ACE2. Forget about the whole current system. Imagine we are scientists, and we are looking at a virus where the case fatality rate is 34.4 percent and people are dying. That is SARS-CoV-1, and it uses ACE2. Then, I present to you another virus that also uses ACE2. But the case fatality rate is only two to three percent, which is SARS-CoV-2, but the destruction is so huge.

Mr. Jekielek:
Right.

Dr. Syed:
What happened between 2002 and 2019 is that the same virus, with the same ACE2-receptor binding and the same virus family has a very different kind of pathogenesis.

Mr. Jekielek:
I want to clarify that when you’re talking about the destruction, you were saying the overall effect on society.

Dr. Syed:
Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:
What were the reasons?

Dr. Syed:
Correct. We are going through people dying, we are going through lockdowns, we are going through financial outcomes, and we are going through psychological outcomes. For the last two to three years, what was our daily routine? It was looking at how many people died, how many people are sick, and how many people are getting infected? It was being told you should wear masks, or you should not wear masks, or you should get vaccines, or you should not get vaccines. This was not a normal time. This was an evil time.

As a doctor, looking at the virus itself, the virus is binding with ACE2 but has a very different behavior compared to SARS-CoV-1. One virus is causing replication in the deeper lung tissues. If you look at Coronavirus, 16 to 20 percent of the yearly common cold infections are by human Coronaviruses, but they stay here in the upper part of the body.

This virus decided, “I can go deeper and then I can replicate there.” Normally Coronaviruses do not like to replicate in the warmer temperatures. They like to stay in the cool area. This was able to be replicated there. Then, it was able to spread systemically.

When the spike protein binds with ACE2, it causes inflammatory and anti-inflammatory systems imbalance. That causes cardiovascular damage and endothelial damage. When that imbalance starts coming in, the whole body is on fire. Literally, we become inflamed, and our cardiovascular system is inflamed.

Our brain gets involved, our nose gets involved, and we get anosmia. There is a British study that said that people who develop anosmia have a two percent reduction in their brain size over one year. There are cardiac issues, renal issues, gastrointestinal tract issues, and musculoskeletal issues. Who knew that this virus would give you a gap after recovery, and then cause long Covid? It’s such a baffling thing.

I went internationally and started talking about this virus. The thing that was really interesting was here you have this acute infection, then it is over. On day X, the person is feeling great, and one to three months later they’re sick again. This gap disconnects long Covid from the acute. People start going towards ME/CFS [Chronic Fatigue Syndrome] and other such things. I cannot imagine how this virus became this way.

Mr. Jekielek:
For the vast majority of people the virus is almost a non-issue, but for some it’s everything that you just described.

Dr. Syed:
Absolutely. I can understand that a general lay person would simply say, “Just get me out of this mess and that’s all I want, please give me my life back.” But for doctors and researchers—and this is paramount—there should have been some thinking to figure out why this thing is so different.

For example, if you look deeper, this virus causes syncytia formation, meaning it takes the respiratory system cells and it fuses them with each other. It binds them to each other, and now they become frustrated that they’re all bound together. Their cilia cannot work correctly because they’re tied to each other. This is like taking a bunch of people and tying their hair together, and now they’re stuck.

These frustrated cells start reproducing inflammatory mediators and they start fusing with each other. Then, the immune system comes and starts attacking them. We haven’t seen this kind of combined destruction in one virus. For general discussion, I used to say that if you go to buy a car, you can say, “I want a car with some features or I want a car with a fully loaded system.”

This virus is fully loaded. You can look at any aspect of it, and you would see that it excels in that aspect. With other viruses with similar traits, they would have one feature here and another feature there. This has a combination of all those features.

Mr. Jekielek:
Most people at this point are probably thinking, “It sounds like someone put it together that way”

Dr. Syed:
I think about this a lot. My audience speaks with me and says, “Is it lab-made, or is it a natural evolution for this virus?” My usual response is, “I have not seen exactly what happened.” Because of that, for me to say that this was either lab-made or a natural evolution, both are incorrect. But it means that there is curiosity on this subject, and we should think about it.

For example, China is obstructing us from trying to figure out what it is. The WHO is backing off every so often to say, “It seems like everything is fine. We’ve done our diligence, and it’s all good.” These things actually are counterproductive.

Let’s assume for a second that it is not lab-produced. Just let the scientists go in there, figure out the genealogy that is present in the lab, come back and say, “Yes, we saw nothing.” Even if it was lab-produced and released in an accident, shouldn’t we actually figure that out? We could figure it out by looking at those biosafety levels.

If it really was an accident, how do we prevent that accident in the future? Number one and number two, what was the need for a virus to be so fully loaded and so feature-full? Why were we experimenting and trying to figure that out? That is all curiosity until we reach the bottom of it.

Mr. Jekielek:
Many people on this show have argued that the mind-virus was much bigger than the virus itself, because of the totality of the effect.

Dr. Syed:
Yes.

Mr. Jekielek:
The wealth transfer, and many other things.

Dr. Syed:
It was a mind-virus created by the virus’s destruction, the fear, and then, the response of some of the leading organizations and associations and companies. If you combine them all, then yes, there is an overall observable impact that people died and fear occurred. Some of the organizations jumped in, and money became collected in different hands. This is observable. This is not something where we can say, “This is just a conspiracy theory.”

From the totality of its impact, it is a mind-virus. I agree with that. I still believe that we, at least here in the U.S., dropped the ball on trying to figure out how to respond. What is even more discouraging and disappointing for me, is that from the very first month or the second month or the third month, we did not know how to handle this. We had two-and-a-half years or more to learn, and we still haven’t learned anything. I do not think we are ready for another pandemic.

Mr. Jekielek:
The genetic vaccine basically creates the most toxic part of the virus, correct?

Dr. Syed:
Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:
With this spike protein have we perpetuated this virus?

Dr. Syed:
Absolutely. Here is how I see it. It’s such a fascinating area to think about and to research. First question, how come the spike of this virus is so different from SARS-CoV-1, which also binds with ACE2? We should understand what is the change in the amino acid pattern, or the change in the pattern of this glycoprotein, which is so different from the SARS-CoV-1. That is the first area of research, and I do not see a lot of research.

Second, we very clearly understand that a bigger destructive part of the virus is the spike protein. Just to repeat this, we’ve been discussing for two-and-a-half years or more that this spike protein binds to ACE2, which throws the system out of balance.

For a quick refresher, we have the ACE enzyme, and we have the ACE2 enzyme. The ACE enzyme binds with Angiotensin I to convert to Angiotensin II, which is a pro-inflammatory mediator, and that causes vasoconstriction. On the other hand, Angiotensin II then binds with ACE2, where the SARS-CoV-2 binds, and ACE2 converts Angiotensin II to Angiotensin (1-7), which is an anti-inflammatory mediator, and dilates the blood vessels, so these two systems stay in balance. Now, you are occupying ACE2 with spike protein and ACE1 is free to do whatever it wants and the overall balance of our system becomes a pro-inflammatory balance.

This is the spike protein’s role. One, it is different from its ancestral cousins. Secondly, it is quite destructive, and we know its mechanism of destruction. Then, we say, “We want this virus to be neutralized.” The best way to neutralize it is to tie its hands.

We’re going to create a vaccine that looks like the spike protein’s hand, so that when the virus arrives in our body, our immune system is trained to bind with the hand. Guess what? We found out very fast that binding with the hand is not occurring.

That should have been the time for the CDC and the FDAs and the authorities to step back and say, “We took a step with the spike protein, and it turned out it is even more destructive, plus it is not as efficacious as we thought. We need to step back and redesign this.” This is clear as day that the efficacy has dropped. Can you imagine we are measuring the efficacy of vaccines in months now? In two months to three months, efficacy goes down to 10 percent.

Mr. Jekielek:
Basically, it was always supposed to be for life, correct?

Dr. Syed:
Either for life, or for two years to three years. Here, we are actually saying, “One month later it was this, and two months later it was this, and by the fourth month it was that.” For any curious researcher or one responsible for a country on the healthcare side, they should be stepping back and saying “This is not working.” You are absolutely correct that we have brought in the most destructive part of the virus, and we still do not know exactly how these vaccines are impacting our body. Studies continue to come in on a daily basis.

At this FLCCC conference, Dr. Ryan Cole was saying that spike protein or mRNA was present in mother’s breast milk. That means the lipid nanoparticle traveled all the way to the breast tissue and then it entered the cells. Breast milk is produced when you take one third of the cell and pinch it off, and that becomes milk.

Whatever is inside the cell is donated to the baby. The mother really gives a part of her body to the baby. If the mRNA is now sitting in there, it actually goes into the breast milk. This was a fascinating new discovery for me, but that is associated with this vaccine.

Efficacy is down, damage is up. If there is any thinking leader on the medical side, they would step back and say, “We need to stop this and we need to figure out what’s happening.” But that’s still not happening. Yes, we brought in the most destructive part and we are still sitting with eyes closed. There are a couple of convenient things that are working for big pharma, the CDC, and the FDA.

Number one, VAERS-like reporting systems are not really precise. I think they deliberately don’t make them precise. Because if they make them precise, then they would have precise information. They don’t want to have the precise information. It just stays muddy and confused, and they can say, “That’s not a very accurate system.”

Secondly, people started fighting with each other. One person comes up and says, “There is destruction by the vaccine.” The other one says, “You are wrong, there is not.” That fight amongst us is letting the actual accountable people free-float, because we are not even looking at their actions. We caused lots of damage by this.

You’ve seen that there are very few official studies for vaccine damage. There is one study from NIH about the neurological symptoms which had 22 patients in it. Even in that study they declared that all of them recovered, but we have actually seen them here still struggling. That study is in a preprint state. It’s still not published, and it’s an NIH study. This is the amount of ignorance there is regarding the vaccine damage.

Mr. Jekielek:
There is an idea that the vaccine is an extension of the original spike, which was actually more toxic than the newer Omicron variants and some of these other toxic elements. How is the damage from the vaccine different from what was coming from the original virus?

Dr. Syed:
That’s a fascinating question. Most of the vaccine spike protein is pre-fusion locked. At the base of the spike protein that the vaccine produces, there is a two-proline lock. That two-proline lock was actually invented in 2006 or 2007 after the SARS-CoV-1 pandemic. They were trying to figure out how to make a vaccine, and it turned out that they could not make a reliable vaccine.

They wanted to lock this spike protein in the pre-fusion state. Pre-fusion state means that before it binds with the ACE2, it is in a locked state. That is how the virus enters our body. It has the spike in a pre-fusion state, when it is free floating. When it binds, then it is in a post-fusion state. They locked it by two-proline changes, so that it stays in pre-fusion state.

However, this spike protein binds with ACE2, and SARS-CoV-1 spike protein binds with ACE2. That was not as widespread a damage, although the destruction was 34.4 percent case fatality rate. This one has lesser damage, but this lesser destruction actually allowed it to spread more, and cause more overall destruction. It’s almost like it got fine-tuned to be able to do more destruction.

Here is a virus that was more destructive in SARS-CoV-1, but it could not spread much, so it died. So, either nature or a lab decided to fine tune this a little more so it could survive longer, but still cause damage. We picked up that part, which is different from the SARS-CoV-1 spike, and more destructive overall, and we put that in front of people. We injected that in them.

The vaccine spike is slightly different from SARS-CoV-2, and here is the reason. When SARS-CoV-2 is replicating, it is making its other proteins as well, and it is producing new daughter cells. Those cells are coming out and our cells are attacking them. In the case of the spike from the vaccine, we have specially modified it. It’s a synthetically-modified RNA, so it can stay in the body longer.

Originally, we thought that longer meant one or two days longer. A cell uses this messenger RNA to make something, it’s a recipe to make proteins. There are about 10 million ribosomes in a cell that bind with the messenger RNA, and cook that recipe. Of course, all of them are not cooking the same recipe. They all have various other things to do, but even if 10 million of them are doing it, they’re making this protein.

Then the messenger RNA is degraded within two to three days. This is the cell’s normal function. It’s not very fast in degrading mRNA. These engineers and researchers and the people who were designing the vaccines said, “Let’s change some bases and material so it does not degrade that fast. Maybe instead of two or three days, we’ll extend it to 10 days.”

There is a study that came out very recently, which showed that the messenger RNA was hanging out in the cells of the local lymph nodes from where the injection was, up to four or five months later, and it was helping to continue to produce the spike proteins. One group can raise their hand and say, “This is awesome. We are making spike for a longer time. We are providing immunity for a longer time.” For the medically-oriented, this is causing affinity maturation.

Affinity maturation is producing the same antigen so much and so many times that the B-cell just keeps honing in and focusing and improving their binding. But we are producing vaccine-based spike for so long. Do we need to produce it for so long? Should that spike be running around in the body? That is a hugely impactful thing. This exceeds the capability of SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2’s capability in a normal, healthy individual will be a couple of weeks, and then it’s done.

Here, we said that we are going to exceed the mRNA’s life by a little. We are seeing four or five months later, the cells are still holding onto it in the lymph nodes, and still making spike protein. Spike protein in turn is going to cause damage as well. These studies should be a great alert for us to say, “Step back, why did this happen? Did we mean to do this?” If they meant to say the spike in the messenger RNA should stay for five months or six months or ten months, we should have heard about that. We didn’t hear about it. Jan, did you hear this idea?

Mr. Jekielek:
Definitely not.

Dr. Syed:
Right. We didn’t hear about it. For the general public where doctors are included as well, it’s a surprise. If it is a surprise for the leadership as well, then they should step back and say, “What is wrong here?”

Mr. Jekielek:
Could this be one of the explanations for the persistent vaccine-damage system?

Dr. Syed:
Yes. The vaccine damage so far has been attributed to two primary problems. One is the spike protein itself. The other one is that the endothelium becomes inflamed, and the immune system becomes dysregulated, and that dysregulation causes the issues. This is a common approach and understanding, and a common pathogenesis to see. That is what is usually attacked for the management of the vaccine injury, or long Covid injury.

I want to make sure that we are aware of a third aspect that I keep seeing, that is missed. That third phenomenon or mechanism actually explains longer-term disease. It is called Network Theory, and it looks like some technical wifi theory. This was a Scandinavian researcher who presented this, and he named it Network Theory. I don’t think we had lots of networks at that time.

To understand Network Theory, imagine for a second this is a spike protein, and we make an antibody against the spike protein. Let’s say this is that antibody. Now, we have a spike protein and an antibody. Our body realizes that this antibody is going to be produced in a massive amount. Some of that will bind with the spike protein, but some of this is going to run around free. If it runs around free, it can bind with other tissues, and cause other problems. It can get complexed onto various tissues. This is his Network Theory. He said, “Our body then produces another set of antibodies.”

Mr. Jekielek:
To deal with those antibodies?

Dr. Syed:
Yes, absolutely right, that can bind with this one. What happens is we have three players. We have the original antigen, we have the antibody against this antigen, and we have an anti-antibody against this antibody. Whoever is in excess will become complex with its opponent, and everything is good. He said that this is an adaptive mechanism, and this is a protective mechanism, so we don’t have free-floating antibodies. He called this one an anti-idiotype antibody.

It turns out that the children with myocarditis have free, full length—and free is a key word—free, full length spike protein in their circulation. One of the mechanisms that the researchers postulated, or the editorial note postulated, was that possibly the antibody and the anti-antibody bound with each other, washing away the antibody that was supposed to bind with spike.

As they washed away, the spike was free to run around and do whatever it wanted. That was not the intent. That is not what we expected. Dr. Bill Murphy from UC Davis had research printed in the New England Journal of Medicine in which he showed the presence of anti-antibodies.

This is not a theory anymore. He actually demonstrated that acute Covid and long Covid patients have these antibodies. Nobody paid attention to the fact that the spike proteins of the vaccine may be giving rise to anti-antibodies, these anti-idiotype antibodies. Nobody said, “We need to figure this out.” Now, these antibodies are being produced by the B-cells. These B-cells can live on for years. Here is the amazing thing. The anti-idiotype antibody, guess what will it look like? If you follow the original pattern, the spike protein comes in, binds with this antibody, then we make another antibody that can bind with this. Can you guess if this antibody looks like spike protein or not?

Mr. Jekielek:
It does?

Dr. Syed:
It does. All of a sudden we are making our own antibodies that behave like the receptor-binding motif of the spike protein, and they can bind with ACE2. Now, we have a long-standing ACE2 problem produced by our own immune system in response to the spike production. Imagine if we had a spike without this receptor binding-motif? Some scientists would be screaming right now that, “We wanted to create a vaccine that neutralizes the virus,” but we haven’t seen the neutralization.

That original thesis, that we need it for neutralization, is gone. Remove the receptor binding-motif, so that we do not end up with the anti-antibodies that bind with ACE2 and cause a person to be in this destructive phase forever. The B-cells, the memory cells that are produced can live in three places; in the local lymph nodes, the axillary lymph nodes, and the cervical lymph nodes and clavicular lymph nodes.

These memory B-cells can circulate in the blood. That is how we draw the blood, and we see the memory B-cells in there. A third possibility is that the B-cells would go to a bone marrow, and they start living there. Those memory B-cells that can live in the bone marrow, would live there for decades. God forbid, if these are the ones that are producing anti-idiotype antibodies, they’re going to produce it for decades. Now, this patient has a vaccine injury and long Covid for a long time.

Mr. Jekielek:
Are they basically producing something very analogous to spike for decades?

Dr. Syed:
Yes. A simple doctor like me reading these studies can infer that the vaccine design should change, and the receptor motif should be removed, so that we don’t end up with anti-ACE2 antibodies. Don’t you think that the people who are more capable and are in this field and in this profession of virologists and vaccinologists would know it better? That lack of interest baffles me.

Mr. Jekielek:
Is there something particular to the vaccine spike that causes this reaction that’s different from the natural spike?

Dr. Syed:
No, it is pre-fused locked. Second, it is created in a way that it can be created for long periods of time.

Mr. Jekielek:
Which triggers that reaction? If it left very quickly, you wouldn’t get that?

Dr. Syed:
Correct. These are the primary reasons. Does this spike have those extra motifs and sequences which are not in the SARS-CoV-1, but are present here, which can cause more disease? There is so much research that now indicates that there are extra sequences as well. Yes, there is something to the spike. Yes, if we continue to produce more spike through the vaccines, we do have a chance of causing damage, and we are seeing it. Interestingly, to the folks that say it is rare, it is actually not very rare. There’s a lot of damage.

Mr. Jekielek:
Most of us are more focused on outcomes rather than mechanisms.

Dr. Syed:
Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:
Through this short conversation I have a much deeper grasp of what we’re facing, and it is deeply worrisome.

Dr. Syed:
Yes. It becomes scarier the more you learn about it with the newer studies coming up. Instead of making it better, every new study demonstrates some new alarming outcome. Equally or more alarming is the dismissive behavior of those who are making decisions. I cannot make those decisions.

If I said today that, “New vaccines should not have receptor-binding motif on them, the idea of neutralization is gone, it’s not working, let’s redesign it so the damage does not occur,” my decision is not going to go anywhere. Those who are making decisions, they are looking at these studies too. There is no response.

Mr. Jekielek:
One would hope, but are they really looking?

Dr. Syed:
Maybe they’re not, or maybe they’re ignoring it. The CDC and the FDA have hundreds and thousands of people, with billions of dollars in their budget. They cannot do what a few doctors can sit down together to do. What a journalistic discussion can reveal, they cannot reveal that? I find this difficult. It seems like they’re aware of it, and they ignore it. If tomorrow they said, “We never read those studies,” then they’re just incompetent.

Mr. Jekielek:
You seem to not be thinking about motive here. Basically you’re saying, “Look, this is really problematic. These people are behaving wrong.”

Dr. Syed:
Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:
Maybe irrationally, or maybe literally, but you can’t tell.

Dr. Syed:
I deliberately look at this. For example, there are many folks who actually present the case of saying, “Here are the conflicts of interests, here are more political outcomes, and here are more money-related outcomes. Here are more influences and power struggles and connections going on.” For me, it is important to show the outcome in terms of destruction that humanity is going through, instead of just that part. Others are doing that part.

I am just so baffled that with the clarity of all these studies being available, all these destruction being seen, they continue to push it more. I was reading something yesterday, a Harvard study about spike protein and myocarditis. The Harvard study said, “Free floating spike proteins are present in the children who have myocarditis. The reason may be,” and the editorial note said and I keep clarifying this, “may be because of the anti-idiotype antibodies and a couple of other mechanisms.” But one of the messages in there was, “This does not reduce the efficacy of the spike protein. The vaccine and the benefits outweigh the risks.” It almost seems like a cop-out by the researchers.

Mr. Jekielek:
It feels like a performative act to get published.

Dr. Syed:
Correct, this is like the password. When my children were young, they would stand in the door, and when I tried to cross, they would say, ” What is the password?” That was a little, cute game for them. It almost seems like the statement is a password. They say, “We want to be published, what is the password?” The password is, “Vaccines are great.”

No one is daring to go against this, or if they are daring, then they’re not being published. There are presenters like me and others who may have been saying, “Vaccines should not be given.” That’s an opinion. You can just discard that opinion. You can discredit that person, and you can say, “Go away.” Researchers who have this job are not raising that alarm, even in those studies where the alarm is present.

Mr. Jekielek:
Obviously, you would like to see this change.

Dr. Syed:
Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Jekielek:
How do you see that happening?

Dr. Syed:
Actually it is very simple. Number one, in two to three years, we have actually seen that there are products that can help. There are early interventions that can help. There are lifestyle choices; vitamin D, sunlight and forest bathing, and staying less stressful. All of those choices help. There are other medications that can help. There were other kinds of vaccines, even by the U.S. military, which were less harmful and more encompassing, because they were targeting other parts of the virus.

The recipe is in front of us, but the decision-making is not happening. How should we look at this? I would have said, “Let’s have a few conferences. Let’s bring in those doctors and researchers who have seen other things working. Let’s see what lifestyle choices are working. Let’s see what vaccines are not working. Let’s see what design changes can be and what other pilot vaccines can be created.”

Imagine the CDC and FDA, instead of them saying, “You’re not a horse, you’re not a cow,” but saying, “Vitamin D is important for you. Please make sure you go out in the sun. We have asked CVS to give you a vitamin D test.” There is a test from the Scandinavian countries for Vitamin D available. I tried to bring that in for myself and they said, “It’s not approved here in the U.S, you cannot have it.”

Imagine if they had said, “We have booths here. People are sitting here with flyers. They will tell you what lifestyle choices to make, what kind of things to eat, what kind of things not to eat, what kind of sunlight to take, what kind of forest bathing, what kind of walking, and what kind of medicines that are useful. Why not try it as well? Here are the risks and the benefits.”

“We have told your doctor about it. Doctor can sit down with you and decide about that and here are the vaccines, we thought they would work, and they’re not really working that well, and we are going to change the design.” Imagine the amount of trust that would develop. Instead of that, the society just fragmented. The researchers are fragmented. There is an utter lack of leadership from these organizations.

Mr. Jekielek:
You work with the FLCCC [Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance], and at a smaller scale, that sounds exactly like what is happening.

Dr. Syed:
Yes. I have hopes for these organizations; FLCCC, React19, folks like me, and there are many other presenters. There are folks like you, who are sitting down and bringing the voice out. I always try to not look at the political part of it, and just look at the medical outcomes. But if you see this may be a political thing, and this may be a money-thing, that is a problem. I do not see any evidence that anything has changed there. If, God forbid, if another pandemic started today, we are going to limp along in the same way. Yes, these organizations are going to help.

Mr. Jekielek:
Any final thoughts as we finish?

Dr. Syed:
Number one, thank you very much for having me. Number two, my recommendation to everyone is to look at studies without a bias of thinking that this may be a pro-vaccine study, or an anti-vaccine study. Look at the people who are involved as the funders, and the one who are supporting it, but also look at the mechanisms. Based on those mechanisms, figure out what is the right thing to do, and then, see what these organizations and leaders are doing. There is a huge disconnect that is observable, and we have to make this grassroots effort to change this.

Mr. Jekielek:
Dr. Mobeen Syed, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Dr. Syed:
Thank you very much for having me.

Mr. Jekielek:
Thank you all for joining Mobeen Syed and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. Hey everyone, if you enjoyed that last episode, you should check out our new documentary, “Unseen Crisis: Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told.” You can find it at unseencrisis.com.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Read More
Popular
Related Videos