🔗Shownotes Links:
Guest Website and Books
- MINDD Foundation Conference – May 2025 in Sydney, where Dr. Mumper will be speaking.
- Medical Academy of Pediatrics and Special Needs (MAPS) – Organization Dr. Mumper works with
🎧 Related Podcasts from Unstress Health with Dr. Ron Ehrlich
Additional Resources Mentioned
- Frontline COVID Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) – Now called the Independent Medical Alliance
- Children’s Health Defense – Organization working on environmental causes of children’s health issues
- Unstress Health Community – Dr. Ron Ehrlich’s health community
YouTube Timestamps (Concise & Key Points):
00:00 – Introduction & MINDD Conference Preview
03:00 – Rise in Autism and ADHD: What’s Really Happening
06:45 – Root Causes: Integrative vs Standard Medical Approach
13:20 – COVID’s Impact on Children’s Mental & Developmental Health
18:00 – Vaccine Safety and the Illusion of “Safe & Effective”
28:00 – mRNA Vaccines: Risks, Myocarditis & Reproductive Issues
38:00 – Ivermectin and Repurposed Drugs in Children
44:30 – DNA Contamination: What Parents Need to Know
52:00 – How to Empower Parents: Informed Consent & Advocacy
1:03:00 – Final Thoughts and Sydney MINDD Conference Preview
Childhood Health, Autism, Vaccines, and the Real Impact of COVID
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:00:01] Hi, Dr Ron here, and I want to invite you to join our Unstress Health community. Now, like this podcast, it’s independent of industry and focuses on taking a holistic approach. To human health and to the health of the planet, the two are inseparable. There are so many resources available with membership, including regular live Q&As on specific topics with special guests, including many with our amazing Unstress Health advisory panel. Now we’ve done hundreds of podcasts all worth listening to with some amazing experts on a wide range of topics. Many are world leaders, but with membership, we have our Unstress Lab podcast series where we take the best of several guests and carefully curate specific topics for episodes which are jam packed full of valuable insights. So join the unstressed health community. If you are watching this on our YouTube channel click on the link below or just visit unstresshealth.com to see what’s on offer and join now. I look forward to connecting with you. Hello and welcome to Unstress Health. My name is Dr Ron Erlich. Well, today we are on to the third in our series on the MINDD Foundation’s conference, which is coming up in Sydney in May, 2025. But the messages from these three podcasts are universal and they’re important for all of us, whether you have children or not. The things that are affecting children affect us all and they are. the canaries in the coal mine, as I’ve often said. And the Mind Foundation is an organisation that is now celebrating its 20th conference in Sydney, May 2nd and 3rd. And if you’re a health practitioner, there’s a training day also on the 1st of May. Do visit the site, the links will be in the show notes. But today my guest is Dr. Elizabeth Mumper. And Liz is a renowned paediatrician with over three decades of experience in clinical practise and medical education. She’s the CEO. of Advocates for Children. It has worked extensively in integrative medicine, focusing on autism and other developmental delays. She’s also a senior fellow in paediatric education and has developed significant resources for managing COVID-19 in children. She’ll also be presenting at that MINDD Conference, as I said. I hope you enjoy this conversation I had with Dr Liz Mumper.Welcome to the show, Liz.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:02:45] Thanks. I’m so happy to be here, Ron.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:02:48] Liz, I know you are coming out to Sydney and you are going to be talking at the MINDD conference, which is just a wonderful organisation that I know you have been speaking at several times, many times you’re very supportive of it. I similarly have been a great supporter of it. I think it’s a wonderful organisation. Um, I thought we might just kick off with this question about autism and other developmental issues like ADHD. How have they dealt with in the standard medical approach and how does the integrative approach differ? How does the standard approach of medicine deal with these growing issues?
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:03:28] Well, first of all, there’s some denial, because as the prevalence of these conditions increases, one of the standard answers is we just must be diagnosing it better or recognising it better. And I assure you that when the prevalence of autism goes from 1 in 5,000, which is what it was when I was a medical student, to 1 in 36 or 1 in 33, Okay. which is actually kind of old data now, that is not all due to better recognition. And I saw something shocking that they’re still saying that 90% of autism is genetic, and there’s absolutely no way that you can have an explosion like that from genetics, because your genes mutate very slowly. So it has to be environmental factors, and there are quite a few. So all the chronic illnesses have increased, autism, ADHD, asthma, eczema, food sensitivities. So unfortunately, medicine now, at least in the United States, is being driven by protocols and algorithms. And so the idea is that you get enough criteria to make that diagnosis, and then you typically look for a medication to give to that child. Now, the integrative approach or the functional medicine approach is totally different. And much more fun, honestly, we look for root causes and we try to address the root causes and that helps the child’s old overall health and not just ameliorating the symptoms based on a pill for every ill. So just as an example, you mentioned autism. You know, kids with autism often have gastrointestinal problems. They often have metabolic problems, problems with their immune systems, problems with their mitochondria, and problems not being able to detoxify environmental agents. So it’s actually kind of exciting to try to work through that, see what a particular child might be suffering from, and then do everything we can, utilising all sorts of lifestyle measures as well as nutritional biochemistry to help that child. So for example, we might find that a child has a mitochondrial problem and the mitochondria are the powerhouses of the cell. And so we would give the nutrients that we know that child needs in order to support their mitochondria, things like B vitamins and vitamin C and carnitine and CoQ10. We’re essentially giving them the building blocks to do the things themselves. Similarly, with kids with ADHD, even though the standard way might be to give Ritalin or Adderall, we would look at things like omega-3 fatty acids and making sure that their nutrition is really good. You’d be surprised how much difference we can sometimes make by changing their breakfast from a sugary cereal to something that has protein and good fats. So that’s what makes it really rewarding to try to help these kids. And that’s something MINDD has been working on for the last 20 years.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:06:52] Yeah. You mention a statistic of, I think you said one in thirty five or thirty six or something. And this being old data, I mean, we recently did just earlier this week. We’ll come out with Dr. James Neuenschwander or Dr. Neu. And he shared with us that the last time a report was actually done by the government. was something like 2012 or something like that. I mean, we are in 2025, 12 or 13 years later. That’s extraordinary.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:07:26] Well, let me explain that a little bit more. So what happens in the United States is that they wait until the child is at eight years of age before making the diagnosis. And then for some reason, that totally baffles me. The CDC takes about four years to work on that data before they release the evidence. So I think what Neu was saying was that the cohort that we know the numbers for was the children born in 2012. So you basically take 2012, you add eight years plus four years and you’re at 2024. So it’s so scary to me. Cause honestly, Ron, I think the numbers that come out next are going to be one in 20 something. I’m not sure what. but everything I’ve seen points to this extraordinary exponential explosion in the diagnosis. Again, not explained by better awareness, better diagnosis.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:08:28] And as Dr. Neu pointed out, that if it was just diagnosis, then we would have a huge cohort of adults who are now diagnosed as autistic. And that’s that’s a whole other story.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:08:44] We don’t we call that the hidden horde hypothesis that somehow there are all these adults that we nobody’s ever noticed
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:08:53] Yes, absurd. Yes. And you’ve also mentioned something that we’ve explored on this podcast many, many times. And that is the integrative approach and how much more satisfying it is for the medical practitioner, because medical burnout, burnout of medical practitioners characterised by the acronym DIE, disengaged, ineffective and exhausted. Well, one can only imagine that if you’re on a treadmill of writing prescriptions on a revolving door of patients coming through, that would be very disengaging. You’d feel ineffective and probably quite exhausted. It’s amazing that I’m amazed that every every practitioner doesn’t embrace this for their own good, let alone their patients.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:09:40] Yeah so I really feel bad for the average paediatrician in America who has to see a patient every 10 or 15 minutes and what that means is that the face-to-face time with the is off in only seven minutes. Now, even if a child is acutely ill, it’s pretty challenging to get a good story and look through the chart to see if there are any predisposing factors or any relevant family history, do a good exam, and then explain everything to the parents. It’s really setting the paediatricians up for failure, I think, and I think it is why so many of us burned out. I loved teaching residents and I love having time with my patients but I hated it when I was expected to see 45 or 50 patients a day and I did burn out in about five years. So I’m glad that that happened because this has been so rewarding. Not only is it rewarding on a day-to-day basis with the patients but my gosh I’ve to meet so many amazing people all over the world, really, at least in 21 countries who are trying in their own countries to do something similar. And Australia is such a great example. I have been coming to MINDD, I think this might be my 12th visit. Um, and this is the 20 year anniversary, as you probably know, and it’s extraordinary that the organisation has kept so many people in Australia and around the world, so well informed during that time, they were really ahead of the curve for sure.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:11:21] Yeah. Yes. And I think the other thing that I have observed and I’ve been in health care for over 40 years myself is that the health of the practitioners that are delivering the health service is a reflexion of public health.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:11:38] Yes, and I do worry that the public health, that as it was delivered in both the United States and Australia, especially during COVID, really did not live up to some very basic standards. Some of the basic premises of good primary care is that you catch things early. and this advice to stay out of the ER until you were turning blue and couldn’t breathe, that never made any sense to me at all. And I was very much a fan of those who use their baseline knowledge to recommend vitamin C and vitamin D and repurpose medications that could actually help the person as long as they took it early in the illness. So we always had this upside down backwards kind of approach from the public health officials and I was quite quite distressed about that.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:12:44] Well, you know, similarly, it’s it’s a story, the influence of corporations on health care, specifically the food and pharmaceutical and chemical industries on health care is a story I’ve been very well aware of since the mid to late 80s. But even that, even knowing that I was totally shocked by the pandemic and the way it was handled. I want to talk to you about that because it was there was some important. lessons to be learnt from it. How do you feel the pandemic affected children?
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:13:18] Oh my gosh, Ron, it was so awful for them. I really feel that we, as the adults, really failed this generation of children. And I actually think it’s going to have multi-generational effects because of some of the mental health issues that they dealt with during the pandemic. So first of all, when you take away school, you take away not just the learning, but you take away a relationship with the teacher, who for certain children might be one of the people that’s telling them that they’re good and that they’re learning and that they have confidence in them, especially from children who come from challenging home situations. Secondly, for kids, their peers are so important. And as we took that away from them, the levels of anxiety at least doubled and some studies say tripled. The rates of suicide between just February of 2020 and March of 2020 doubled. and kids started having OCD, which we contributed to, honestly, because we made them afraid of germs. We took a happy birthday song and turned it into a timer for them to compulsively wash their hands and get rid of germs. I had a cute little boy who came to me and he had COVID and he wasn’t that sick. and I told him, you know, that he had COVID, but his body knew how to take care of it. And he was going to be fine in a few days. And we talked about some vitamin D and some vitamin C and taking a lot of fluids and bone broth. And he looked at me with fear in his eyes and said, am I going to kill my granny? I mean, this is terrible what we did to kids. Brown University did a very interesting infant study. They had a bunch of data from about 10 years prior about normal development. And the so-called COVID babies really showed significant developmental delays. Their numbers went down from a mean of about 100. to a mean of about 80% of that. And so they were essentially losing between 17 and 20%, roughly, of their developmental milestones. So. kids were profoundly affected. And teachers are saying that several years after kids return to school that they still haven’t made up the academic things that they missed. So the teachers are still trying to catch them up and get them back on grade level. And I really worry that we’ve taught kids to be very, very afraid of germs and, you know, germs. they thought came from other people and I don’t want them to be afraid of other people you know I’m in the school that says kids need to play in the dirt and that if you have a dog and they lick your baby, that’s fantastic, because those kids. have better modulated immune systems and they tend to have less allergies and less asthma and less eczema. So again, turning things upside down and making kids fearful, anxious, depressed and in some cases suicidal.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:16:38] But what we have done, and I hate to be cynical about it, is created some great customers in the future for the very industry that set the agenda. I hate to be cynical about it, but I can’t help say that that is, well, unfortunately, a big factor there. The COVID, I mean, we talk about academic and social areas, we did a programme on children’s mental health with a psychologist here well before the pandemic. And she shared that one in four children under the age of 18 have been diagnosed with either depression or anxiety. So I can only imagine what the statistics look like now. Vaccinations were another issue that, you know, was very contentious to some to to. Unfortunately, I think the majority of people still believe it was one of the great breakthroughs in modern medicine. we were able to rush these vaccines that were cutting edge through and get them approved. But vaccines, talk to us a little bit about vaccines in general. I think before we dive into the COVID ones, the issue of vaccine safety is an interesting one, isn’t it? Because as soon as anyone seems to say anything about vaccine safety, they are branded anti-vax. What’s your view of that.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:18:03] Well, I think it’s really important, Ron, for your viewers to understand that there were dramatic declines in mortality from vaccine preventable illnesses before certain vaccines were introduced. This was true, for example, for the DPT vaccine, which people may know as preventing pertussis or whooping cough. That went down in terms of mortality about 98% before the DPT ever made it to the market, and that was due to probably better sanitation, people having indoor toilets, sewers not running in the streets, safe water supplies. The same thing happened with measles before MMR was ever distributed, which started in 1963. The mortality from measles had gone down about 98 to 99 percent. So I think that there’s a certain mythology that goes along with vaccination that gives them more credit than they actually deserve because public health standards were so important in the decline in infectious disease. Now, with regard to safety. You won’t be surprised, but your audience may be surprised that we really did not have the same kind of placebo-controlled trials for vaccines that happen for drugs. Theoretically, with drug trials, you ideally want to compare them, if they’re an injectable, for example, to a saline injection, just a simple saltwater injection, which doesn’t really affect anyone. but most vaccines were compared to other vaccines. Now, you and I both know that anything practitioners do, whether it’s a medication or a vaccination, some certain percentage of people will have side effects. And that’s just part of the situation. And so a big responsibility of the practitioner is to look at the risk benefit ratio and make sure that you’re not hurting people when you’re trying to help them. So, vaccine adverse events. have always been there. If you open up a package insert, any parent, any person can read the long list of possible side effects. But that tends to be airbrushed over with the phrase, safe and effective, safe and effective. Your child needs this today. And oh, by the way, if you’re behind by vaccines, we’ll do all five today. That in particular bothers me because we know that any vaccine, even in the best of circumstances, is a mitochondrial stressor. And as you duplicate the number of injections a person is getting, you’re adding to that stress as well as adding to the aluminum load, for example, in the aluminum vaccines. And you may well surpass the ability of that child to detoxify multiple vaccines. The VAERS system in the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, only captures about 1% of reactions. And we’ve known that since 2011. And yet the CDC has not really made any major steps to improve that. And the catch-22 there is, when people do report a vaccine adverse event, instead of the official response being, wow, this could be serious because there may be 100 times these number of people suffering since we know we don’t capture everyone. And even the conservative estimates are that it’s 39 times more people than reported. It seems to be, well, we don’t really know, if those people really had a vaccine reaction, you know, some people might be trying to fake it. And it seems like they just don’t take it as seriously as I think they need to. And this was most evident in COVID, but it’s happened in the past with pertussis vaccine and with measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in particular.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:22:30] I mean, the whole issue around the, well, I think prescription of medication is, I believe, the third biggest killer in America.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:22:42] I think if you include hospital mistakes and prescription errors, I think you are correct.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:22:49] Yes, I mean, I got that statistic from Peter Goetzsche, who is the former founder of the Cochrane Collaboration.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:22:57] Oh, he probably knows what he’s talking about more than me.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:23:00] Yeah, but anyway, I mean, I think the point is we’re not even talking about vaccines here. We’re talking about pharmaceutical prescription medication as a baseline is the third biggest killer in America behind heart disease and cancer. So laying that as the foundation, you there’s there’s two things you’ve mentioned and I think they’re worth just backing up a little bit here. One is when a drug is approved, The gold standard is a randomised double-blind control trial. And that involves testing a drug against something that’s inert. So you know, A, whether it’s effective and B, whether it’s causing a side effect. So what you were just saying, and I think our listener may have missed it. It’s worth repeating that no vaccine has had or not. Not many of the vaccines have had a placebo in an inert placebo. matched against it, it’s always been another vaccine against one vaccine.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:24:03] I did say that vaccines typically are not tested against a true placebo. Now there’s one exception that we found in one arm of a Gardasil trial where allegedly it was a true placebo, but in the other Gardasil trial, the placebo was very abhorrent to me because it was a very strong aluminum containing solution. Now we know aluminum induces autoimmunity. In fact, that’s the way that scientists induce autoimmunity in their lab rats is to give aluminum is one way to do it. And one of the things that was most urgently reported from girls that took the Gardasil vaccine, and this goes back to like 2007, 2008, was that they got autoimmunity as well as something called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. And so imagine this, if you’ve got a vaccine that causes autoimmunity and you test it against the control, which also causes autoimmunity, what does that do? That washes out the difference. and that way your vaccine doesn’t look as bad in terms of causing autoimmunity. But the best data that I know of suggests that getting a Gardasil vaccine basically doubles your risk of developing autoimmune illness, which is a terrible thing to have. and is also one of the things that’s increasing so dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years. So I do think that people make the assumption that vaccines being given so broadly to everyone and given to little tiny babies are going to be so well tested that nobody could begin to question their safety or effectiveness. But when you actually look at how the studies are done, It’s disappointing. Another example.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:26:10] Disappointing. I think that’s a nice turn of phrase, Liz, to disappoint, but yes.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:26:14] I’m a southern woman and my mother always said if you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all but I’ve had to not do that much in my career. It is disappointing. Yep. But hepatitis B for example which is given to all babies even though it’s really only needed for the babies of mothers who are hepatitis B positive which it’s typically going to be a drug abuser or prostitutes, someone who’s gotten a bad blood transfusion. And that vaccine was either tested four days or five days. Now, it’s being tested in a baby who can’t talk. The parents who are being asked to interpret their baby’s symptoms have just had the baby, so they don’t know the baby very well. So you’re really only going to identify really obvious things light. seizures or fevers, but you’re not going to notice subtle neurologic impact. And for example, if your baby cries all the time, you’re likely to be told by the nurses or the physicians that your baby has colic or is just irritable. So that was one very egregious example of not doing enough, in my opinion. And honestly, the reason that behind the scenes. they made the decision to give it to babies on day one or two of life, was trying to capture their audience because they knew that the people at risk wouldn’t necessarily show up for the shots. And so there’s this sort of implicit assumption that it must be fine for everybody if you’re gonna give it to everybody in order to catch those people. And in my hospital, You know, we knew hepatitis B status of women. And I can remember so clearly, I was at a paediatric departmental meeting one time and the chair of the department was saying, I can’t figure out why we can’t get to 100% on our hepatitis B vaccines. And I was like, that would be me because I’m actively advising against it. It just did not make any sense to me at all. And there’s some concerning data that that vaccine on the first day of life is associated with increased neurologic abnormalities, including an increased rate of autism. And so that’s one that I really try to delay until the child’s at risk. The other thing that didn’t make any sense to me is that the age of risk is really when the child becomes sexually active or starts doing drugs. And the babies that get the hepatitis B vaccine in infancy, sometimes their antibodies are gone by the time they’re about seven or eight years old, according to the Japanese data. And so we give it when they’re babies, when they don’t really need it. And then when they do need it, it’s not working for them anymore. So I think that needs a real overhaul.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:29:11] Well, you know, we’ve mentioned we’ve talked about the lack of randomised control trial, which is the gold standard in pharmaceutical approval, the fact that there are no placebos given. But the other side of the coin is the adverse reactions. And you mentioned the VAERS. But I know that in about I think it was 2011, the Institute of Medicine in America did report on, I think there are about 158 different potential adverse reactions and you know the report the conclusions of the report were quite damning and yet in being that they didn’t have sufficient evidence to prove one way or another for 85 percent 135 of the 158 adverse reactions and they didn’t have sufficient evidence one way another to say whether it was that verse, therefore. we conclude that they’re safe and effective. What an extraordinary piece of science that is.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:30:17] Yes, I was very disappointed by that because absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence of these adverse effects. And unfortunately, parents who have been reporting adverse events for vaccines, in my opinion, have often been gaslighted, told it was their imagination that there was no correlation, that just because the timing was so damning, You know, it could be a coincidence, but. I have found the parents reporting vaccine adverse events in my experience to be intelligent, not people that panic easily. They’re very reasonable. They know their babies. We always need to assume that especially mothers and fathers many times know their babies very well. And when the baby changes its cry, sometimes it’s trying to tell you that it has an encephalitis. um, which is a brain inflammation that is known to be a side effect of vaccines. And this, this issue of, um, not applying careful scientific scrutiny, you know, I have had so many parents tell me that they go to the ER, their baby had a bad reaction, a neurologic change after a vaccine. The doctor tells them that it’s just a coincidence. And then the nurse pulls them aside and says, probably not a coincidence. I think this probably was a vaccine reaction. And that’s really not the way we should treat the mothers and fathers of these children.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:31:59] Hi, Dr. Ron here and I want to invite you to join our Unstress Health community. Now, like this podcast, it’s independent of industry and focuses on taking a holistic approach to human health and to the health of the planet. The two are inseparable. There are so many resources available with membership, including regular live Q and A’s on specific topics with special guests, including many with our amazing Unstress Health advisory panel. Now we’ve done hundreds of podcasts all worth listening to with some amazing experts on a wide range of topics. Many are world leaders, but with membership we have our Unstress Lab podcast series where we take the best of several guests and carefully curate specific topics for episodes which are jam-packed full of valuable insights. So join the UnstressHealth community. If you’re watching this on our YouTube channel Click on the link below or just visit UnstressHealth.com to see what’s on offer and join now. I look forward to connecting with you. Another area I know you’ve connected with and that is and it’s a group that I love and I’ve really wanted to support is the Frontline COVID Critical Care, FLCC, FLCCC, anyway, you know what I mean, FLCCC. And now they’re calling themselves the Independent Medical Alliance. You collaborated with them. There was a kind of an I-Care programme that came out of that looking at vaccine. Can we talk a little bit about this? Um, I-Care programme.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:33:42] Well, so I admire them so much. And when they started making recommendations during the COVID pandemic, they just made so much more sense to me than anything I was hearing on the news or coming out of the government official’s mouths. So I wanted to collaborate with them. And I offered my services as a paediatric consultant. And we really wanted to emphasise the use of repurposed drugs. And I really wanted to emphasise the importance of a child having good, basic lifestyle interventions like excellent nutrition, getting exercise, having supportive relationships, and being able to handle their stress. So the original I-Care programme was working on promoting that and then looking at the for things like… Vitamin C being a great thing to take if you have an acute infection because it’s not only a good antiviral, it’s great antioxidant. We looked at the value of vitamin D. It was very difficult to find people who died from COVID or with COVID if they had vitamin D level above 50. And yet so many doctors are happy with a vitamin D level of 30 nanograms per deciliter, which was set in order to avoid rickets. Well, I don’t want my kids just not to have rickets. I want them to have good immune systems and they need vitamin D levels that are probably in the 60 to 80 range. So I still work with them and in two weeks I’ll give a little plug for people that may be able to attend. They’re going to have a conference in Atlanta and I’m going to fly there to be on a paediatric panel. I’ve just recently done a little video series for them about measles. You may be aware that in the United States there’s a big brouhaha now about measles. Unfortunately, one little girl did die in Texas, but it really seems from the evidence that we have so far that it was factors other than measles being a deadly disease that led to her death. And we are looking into that in quite some detail. So I really love the organisation. I’ve worked with so many great organisations. There’s so many good people. I work with Children’s Health Defence, which tries to work on the environmental causes. I work with MAPS. You may be aware that when we come to Australia, we’re bringing MAPS training, the Medical Academy of Paediatrics and Special Needs, to our Australian colleagues, who from my past experience are typically fabulous. So I’ve been very lucky to meet a lot of very good people who all want to help. our children.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:36:37] I love the FLCCC also. And I find the story particularly interesting because I think one could describe two of their founders, Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, as pretty mainstream before the pandemic. They were in intensive care. He was a leader in America in intensive care. He presented to Congress, Pierre Kory, I know Paul Marik, Paul Marik highly respected. And I think, I’m not quite sure, I’d love to have them on as a guest, but I’m not quite sure, but I had the feeling they had somewhat of an epiphany during the pandemic, which they weren’t necessarily totally aware of before the pandemic, and that is this influence on healthcare. They always felt they were doing evidence-based medicine. You know, it was cutting edge evidence-based medicine as published in. Is that what happened to them do you think was the was that was it a turning point professionally?
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:37:36] Oh, I think it was definitely a turning point. Paul Marik was the second most published. ICU academician in the entire world, not just the United States, in the entire world. And when I first started talking to him about some of my vaccine concerns, honestly, he just couldn’t believe it because he made the assumption that because he was always taught they were safe and effective and the best thing that ever happened, that that was the case. I actually mailed him a whole box of textbooks and he did have an epiphany and to his credit. He was open to seeing what was right before him, and he couldn’t understand why we couldn’t use repurposed medications. He couldn’t understand why government-directed hospital administrator protocols were interfering with his ability to take of his patient in a normal doctor-patient relationship. Pierre Kory also, he was a pioneer in utilising bedside ultrasound so that you could, the doctor or the clinician could right at the bedside put an ultrasound wand on a patient and see if they had a liver abscess or an ovarian rupture or whatever the case might be and was working in academic hospitals and teaching residents. And he was shocked when he testified in Congress about Ivermectin being such a great agent for so many different reasons. and being so effective that it didn’t catch on and he became very disillusioned and both of them, I would actually call it like an existential crisis almost.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:39:25] Yes.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:39:26] for both of them and
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:39:28] They were disappointed, Liz. They were disappointed.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:39:31] Disappointed is this other way to say it, right? But, um… Yeah, they’ve done amazing work. And history is going to prove them on the right side of history. And I have tremendous respect for both of them, as well as a lot of other colleagues, you know, they’re very charismatic and kind of right out front. But they’re people in probably, you know, a dozen countries that I know of, and probably lots more that I don’t know of. They were also doing amazing work and publishing their trials with ivermectin and showing decrease in mortality, decrease in morbidity, and still were having trouble getting people to listen to them too. So it is a great organisation and I think that they’re expanding their scope now to the Independent Medical Alliance because they really want to restore honest medicine and restore the doctor patient relationship and to limit the ability of outside forces to get in between the doctor and his or her patient. They, you know, I wish them godspeed and I’ll try to help them in any way I can.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:40:46] Yes, me too. And it’s interesting because, you know, we hear a lot about IQ and EQ. And I have this thing called HQ, which is health quotient, which is the, you know, your own health and your awareness of the things which influence it. I think there’s almost one question that one could ask some person you didn’t know, a word association, and you’d say to them, well, when I say the word ‘ivermectin’ to you, what do you think of? And if their first response is horse dewormer, then you know so much about where they’re getting their information about that it’s almost, it’s incredible. And that is an example of a repurposed drug, which apart from being a horse dewormer also happened to win the Nobel Prize for Medicine not that long ago in 2015.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:41:38] I know. And you know, that crazy meme from the FDA, I believe. was the reason that the pharmacists in my town would not fill my ivermectin prescriptions. The major chains would not fill them, and I thought, well, you know, Pierre and Paul had just written this amazing compilation of all the wonderful things ivermectin did, and they had it all referenced. I think there were over 400 references, and so in my naïveté, I thought, well, I’m going to print this out. I’m going to put it through the window at the local pharmacies. Once they read it, they’ll understand why I’m doing what I’m doing. And suffice it to say it didn’t really have much of an impact. There were two pharmacies in town who from the beginning One was a compounding pharmacy, one was a smaller pharmacy that was more independent. They filled my prescriptions, but the major chains usually did not unless there was a little bit of a rebellious person who happened to be working that day as the pharmacist and then some of the scripts would go through at one of the major chains. So Ivermectin, y’all it’s just horse pace. That was absurd.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:42:52] And I think for our listener that may not be aware why that was ridiculed like that was because if there was an effective treatment for a condition, you can’t issue an emergency use authorisation for a novel medication or drug like mRNA technology. I hesitate to call it vaccines, but I don’t call it vaccines either. Yeah. No, but for that kind of technology, which had never before been used on humans to be rushed through, you needed an emergency use authorisation, which meant there was just no other treatment. We had no choice. We had to do it. mRNA vaccines. Now, they were issued across the board and even to children. What were some of the effects of this novel gene technology? What were some of the effects on children?
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:43:50] I, from the beginning… was very concerned, because essentially what was happening is that these injections were telling the body to make spike protein, which is the very thing that was causing a lot of mischief in the first place. And there wasn’t an off switch. So I thought of it being a paediatrician as a Goldilocks issue. You know, you didn’t want it to be too hot, meaning too many side effects, you didn’t want it to be too cold, meaning not enough antibody to really protect you. These injections never were demonstrated nor never were they studied to prevent transmission. And that’s why when our president or other public health officials said, if you take this, the virus stops with you, you won’t pass it on. That was patently untrue. It was never studied in the original trials. some of the worst side effects I write about in the book that is coming out in May about the effects of COVID injections and lockdowns on children. And one is myocarditis. As early as June of 2021, so probably less than about six months after the injections came out, We knew that myocarditis in kids, usually boys. was about 12-fold higher in the kids who got these mRNA injections, and yet there was this hope that it was going to be a kinder, gentler kind of myocarditis, and people were still operating out of fear at that point, and I would say a bit of denial, and they still that children get it and the thing that really surprised me is that at the meeting of the American Committee of Immunisation Practises in June of 2021, even if you’d had a myocarditis with your first shot, they didn’t say don’t get another shot the way that we would if somebody had a bad allergic reaction to penicillin, we’d say well don’t take penicillin again. But instead they said you should discuss it with your doctor and I thought that was pretty wishy-washy. Another thing that happened is significant neurologic damage. In fact, in one of the paediatric trials that only had a little over 1,000 children and adolescents in it, one of the girls actually developed a paralysis within about 24 hours of her injection. When she went to the emergency room. They didn’t really know what to do with her. And she went on to develop gastroparesis, which is sort of a paralyzation of the stomach that meant that she couldn’t really digest her food and pass it onto the intestine. She ended up with a feeding tube. So the thing that really bothers me a great deal is that when her side effect was reported by Pfizer. to the FDA, they classified her as having functional abdominal pain. And the clinicians in the audience will realise that that means abdominal issues where you don’t really know what the cause is and you’re sort of implying that it might be psychiatric. This is a girl in a wheelchair with a feeding tube. Now, I want to ask the people in your audience, if you knew at the time that these vaccines were recommended for children, that there was a one in a thousand or so chance. at least as suggested from the initial trials that your child would be paralysed and not able to eat. Is that a good enough odds for you to take this untested, unproven product? I really think it was very fraudulent, is what I’m going to say, to not report it more honestly. We’re also very concerned about reproductive side effects. We know that women’s menses were very dysregulated, very disruptive. There are many menopausal women who reported they were having bleeding again after not having had a period for eight or 10 years. There were women that reported that their cycle, which was usually five days long and a reasonable amount, was all of a sudden eight or 10 days old and much heavier. or that instead of having their cycle every month, they were having it every two weeks. All these things are clearly interfering with very fundamental, exquisitely controlled endocrinology, neurology, immunology, all those mechanisms that have been honed over millennia. are being disrupted by this new technology. Autoimmunity is a big concern. One of my former colleagues, Ari Vodjani is his name. He’s a wonderful immunologist. We published a couple of papers together. Early on in the pandemic, he found that about 26 or 27 human proteins have. very analogous structures to the spike protein such that his worry was that as our bodies tried to fight the spike, that they would actually end up destroying certain aspects of human tissue. And unfortunately, he’s turned out to be right, autoimmune diseases did rise. The last thing that really concerns me is the issue of cancer, because we know that these injections disabled something called P53. which you can think of as the guardian of your genome. it’s one of the things that protects you against cancer. Now, many of your listeners may be surprised to hear that we all have some cancer cells that we make every day and we want to have a good immune system to surveil for those cancer cells and essentially gobble them up so that they don’t continue to grow. But if we interfere with p53, we are interfering with that very important protective process, and many clinicians in the trenches reported seeing so-called turbo cancers fairly early on in the pandemic, where either the cancer presented at a much younger age than typical, or people didn’t present till they were at stage four, or once they did present, they just progress more rapidly than typical. And those are five of the things that I talk about in my book that makes me very concerned about this generation of children. We also saw higher mortality from other causes and higher disability. And so I think that history is gonna prove that these vaccines did more harm than good and that the evidence that’s been used to talk about how many deaths they prevented was more based on modelling rather than actual data and that the data that came out of the adverse events was based on people dying or getting sick. And I hope I live long enough to see that really come out because people in some ways seem to have moved on from it. And that worries me because I think it’s going to happen again. And I want parents to really understand how they were manipulated in a number of different ways in the service of this new technology.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:51:29] Hmm. I mean, I think one of my concerns is that the very people that made the decisions and and disseminated the stories in the media, I don’t use the word news services anymore in the media are the very people that are being asked to assess its success. And otherwise, I mean, I had a guest on my podcast, a professor of paediatrics, you may have heard of him, Professor Robert Booy. who is what the British Medical Journal would describe as a key opinion leader and product champion here in Australia, I had him on and I said to him, because my grandchildren were being lined up for this novel technology. And I said, how can you justify using novel technology on children? And he said, how will we know it works if we don’t try? I mean, that’s that was probably one of the most disturbing comments I think I’ve ever heard from a medical practitioner, particularly as close to home as it was, but they the the whole technology was so novel. And actually, there’s also DNA contamination being observed in many of these vaccines as well to add to the add to the mix, literally add to the mix.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:52:53] Well, one of my rebuttals to that doctor would be you’re testing this novel technology to see if it works on kids who are going to survive this illness. Ninety nine point nine nine nine eight seven, I think it is percent of the time. So why do you even want to mess with that? it’s harder to do better than statistically zero deaths. Not that some children didn’t die with COVID, they typically had other underlying health problems, but the death rates were somewhere in the range of one in 1.7 million to 2.5 million, which for purposes of that kind of risk benefit analysis is statistically zero. So I would argue that you don’t have a justification. for trying to see if it works when the kids are already that far ahead of the game just on the basis of their excellent innate immune system. And the DNA contamination, I’m telling you that when I listened to an all-day symposium about that, it was one of the most depressing things I had ever listened to as a physician. And it was very hard for me to write that chapter in my book, because I really worried that if people understood it, they would feel a lot of despair and lose hope. But we have to deal with it. And as I understand it, the evidence is continuing to pile up. It’s been replicated in a whole bunch of places now. So it’s not just one person saying it, even though the original person that said it was a complete expert in that field and was not known to cry wolf, we now have had it replicated a disturbing number of times.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:54:51] And people, well, people are unlikely to hear it in the mainstream media. But just remind us of what the problem with DNA contaminated vaccination vaccines, mRNA vaccines, what is you’ve mentioned, turbo cancers, I suspect that’s part of it. But just remind us what is the problem with DNA contamination?
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:55:16] We are built with an exquisite immune system that tries to recognise self and non-self. So if there’s contamination with other DNA that is foreign to us, a number of things can happen. Your immune system can get kind of hiked up to try to deal with it, and then you’re out of balance. You know, a healthy person ideally lives in homeostasis. where there’s, you know, this delicate balance that goes on. There’s concern about the potential for just as an example, for the mitochondria to receive this foreign DNA is very dangerous. You know, mitochondria, the power houses of the cell, they actually have a lot of regulatory functions, but they’re very persnickety and they don’t like when the cell is a little too acid or a little too basic, they don’t like it when it has a virus, they don’t like it when it has heavy metals, they don’t like it if it’s a little too salty or not salty enough. So imagine. mitochondria are going to do when they see this DNA contamination, I’m worried it’s essentially going to drive them into something called the cell danger response, which was pioneered by Dr. Bob Naviaux, who’s actually been to Australia in the past, to explain this to the Australian clinicians. and if you get locked in cell defence mode, you can’t play offence. Now, what is offence for a cell? It’s making proteins, it’s running cellular machinery, it’s doing biochemistry, it’s appropriately killing off cells that you don’t need anymore and making new cells. You know, all that potentially can get disrupted and sort of locked in if the mitochondria are always in cell defence mode. So I think it’s a very big issue. I think that it’s going to be very difficult to get it recognised on a governmental or international stage where there are stakeholders that are very powerful and rich who would rather that not be the case. but I think we all have to look carefully at the science and keep putting the pressure on. And as clinicians, we have to step up to the bat and try to take care of the people that were hurt so dramatically from this public health intervention. And there are thousands and millions of them, unfortunately.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [00:58:04] Liz, if we want to let’s be positive now, because if we’re wanting to empower parents, how do we empower parents to make informed decisions about their children’s health, given what they’re exposed to and the environment in general and things like chronic, some of the chronic diseases that are out there now and on the rise in children? How do we empower parents to make these informed decisions about their children’s health?
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [00:58:29] Well, the first thing I want to say to the parents out there is that you have a right to truly inform consent. Now, informed consent is not a note from the school that says, if everybody in the class gets this injection, we’re going to give the kids a pizza party. That was abhorrent and immoral, in my opinion. What you are entitled to is an honest discussion of the potential risks of the intervention and the potential benefits. And what I think parents should have been presented with was the chances of your child dying from this are extraordinarily small. And most kids handle this infection very well because they have a very good innate immune system that responds non-specifically at first and then more specifically later to coronaviruses. Your child has already had a bunch of coronaviruses because they’re kids who are playing with other kids and they get cold. And then looking at the issue of unknown risk. I mean… It’s one thing if you really know what the risks are, but at the time these vaccines were being promoted to children, they really weren’t aware of all the risks. The second thing I would say to parents is know that we all are easily manipulated by propaganda. It is an art form to repeat things over and over to make catchy phrases to do marketing in order to change people’s opinion. It doesn’t mean you’re not smart. In fact, there’s some data that suggests that the smarter you are, you might even be more susceptible to propaganda. But it’s It’s difficult to, to make decisions when you’re living in fear. Fear turns on your amygdala, which is the seat of very strong emotions. And when you’re living in fear, you are more susceptible to propaganda. So try to get your antenna tuned in to when people are just trying to scare you. And then the other I would say is be aware of conflict of interest. You know, it’s good to get advice from someone about interventions when they’re not going to profit from the fact that you take it or not. And in this case, the profits were so huge and billions of dollars that that’s a very strong incentive to keep moving forward. And you can look for conflicts of interest when you watch the nightly news and you see that the news is brought to you by Pfizer or when you watch Jeopardy. Do you guys have Jeopardy in Australia? I know you have a lot of American TV. Well, Moderna was one of the main sponsors of Jeopardy. And so, you know, Ken Jennings would say, you know, thanks to our sponsors at Moderna. They are controlling a lot of what you see and hear. One of the things that I’m very happy about is that our new HHS Secretary, Health and Human Services, which is Robert Kennedy Jr., has a goal of taking direct to consumer advertising off of TV. Your neighbour New Zealand and the United States are the only countries in the world, I’m told, that let that happen. And if you look at the news, about 70 to 80% of the ads are usually pharmaceutical. So that gives them a stronghold over some of the content we’ve been told. And I think that it will ultimately prove that that is quite true. Parents, trust your instincts. maternal instinct especially, and paternal instincts have been honed over millennia to give you instinctive knowledge that you may not even realise that you have. So I would say that just as a mother comes to know what her child’s cry means, or when they really know in their heart of hearts that their child is sicker than the doctor seems to think. you know, you have to sort of toughen up and speak out. And I’m not saying you won’t get gaslit or made fun of that may happen, unfortunately. But you have to be a great advocate for your child. It’s very rewarding when you do that. And so those four things would be a little bit of advice for what it’s worth to the parents when this happens next time.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [01:03:24] Well, it’s worth a lot, Liz, and I was so looking forward to this conversation. Thank you so much for joining us today and sharing your knowledge and wisdom. And I look forward to connecting with you in Sydney in the beginning of May for the MINDD conference. Thank you so much.
Dr Elizabeth Mumper [01:03:40] My pleasure. I’ll see you in six weeks.
Dr Ron Ehrlich [01:03:45] Well, it is interesting, isn’t it, when we hear Liz talking about become aware of what is being advised to you by your patients, by your doctors and be aware of conflict of interest. And I think I didn’t want to stop at that point, but I knew I could make this point to you. And that is so your doctors, there’s not a conflict of interest per se from your doctor who is advising you what the regulations are telling them to do. busy medical practitioners who are seeing a lot of patients trying to keep up with all of the regulations, all of the paperwork, all of the bureaucracy and stay up on all the latest so-called evidence based medicine are really doing the best they can do. This is a story, as I’ve said many times, that is very difficult, easy to miss. But once you hear it, difficult to ignore. And I thought the story of. two world renowned intensive care physicians like Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Paul Marik are an excellent example of this. And if you go back and also listen to The Healthy Bite on corporate capture a few weeks ago, you’ll get a sense of it as well. There is so much for doctors to do and to keep up with and missing this story of corporate influence and the way that evidence-based medicine has been hijacked. by the pharmaceutical industry funds over 75% of all medical research. It also funds all the medical journals. It also funds many of the medical schools. And it also provides a great deal of research money at those universities. So the corporate capture of the pharmaceutical industry, but also the food and chemical industries on regulatory bodies, This is something that is easy to miss. But once you become aware of it, difficult to ignore and rather than throw your hands up in despair and say, oh, my God, what is the point? This is the message. You need to take control of your own health and stick with the basics of knowledge and find people like this podcast, like the Unstress Health community, like the MINDD Foundation, that gives you independent advice, independent of industry. Health care and our food system have become commodities, and public health is a long way down that list. Anyway, I would encourage you to attend the MINDD Conference. I would also encourage you to join the Unstress Health community. I hope this finds you well. Until next time, this is Dr Ron Ehrlich. Be well. Feeling stressed, overwhelmed? It’s time to unstress your life. Join the Unstress Health community and transform stress into strength. build mental fitness from self sabotage to self mastery and together let’s not just survive but thrive. Expert led courses, curated podcasts, like-minded community and support and much more. Visit unstresshealth.com This podcast provides general information and discussion about medicine, health and related subjects. The content is not intended and should not be construed as medical advice or as a substitute for care by a qualified medical practitioner. If you or any other person has a medical concern, he or she should consult with an appropriately qualified medical practitioner. Guests who speak in this podcast express their own opinions, experiences and conclusions.
