To weigh a vaccine question carefully, what helps most is a specific account with real figures in it, one you can take to your doctor and check. One documentary sets out to be that.
The series is Remedy, released by TTAC Publishing in July 2023. It is built from interviews with twenty-nine physicians, researchers, attorneys and journalists. It gathers their claims about what may cause harm after an injection, along with the recovery steps some of them use. Everything below is their account, not settled fact. None of it replaces a conversation with your own doctor.
Weighing a charged health claim calmly is a skill in itself, and it is the one worth building before any of this. A simple practice for steadying yourself before you weigh something frightening sits at the start of my free foundation course. This article then walks through the documentary's account so you can judge it for yourself:
- The exact quantities the interviewed physicians name, from aluminium in a newborn dose to mercury in a flu vial
- What a trial's comparator group tells you, and why these physicians say it matters more than the headline result
- The recovery and detox steps they describe, with the doses and sequencing they give
- A framework for making your own vaccine decisions from a settled place rather than fear
Read it as a map of one source's argument. The value is in knowing what to bring to a qualified practitioner, not in acting on any single claim alone.
What you can read on an ingredient list once you know the quantities
The documentary's first argument is about quantity, not just presence. It walks through vaccine adjuvants, the substances added to provoke a stronger immune reaction than the antigen alone would. The contributors focus on aluminium salts, thimerosal and a detergent called polysorbate 80.
Their concern with aluminium is about arithmetic. Ty Bollinger puts a newborn dose of hepatitis B vaccine at 250 micrograms of aluminium. Paul Thomas gives the FDA limit for injected aluminium as five micrograms per kilogram per day, which works out at 18.16 micrograms for an eight pound baby. Their claim is that one dose is therefore roughly fourteen times that figure. They add that aluminium is taken up by immune cells which cannot break a metal down, so it persists and travels.
Polysorbate 80, they note, is separately documented in pharmaceutical research as opening the blood-brain barrier, the filter that keeps circulating substances out of brain tissue. On thimerosal, Bollinger gives the figure as 49.6 percent mercury by weight, with 25 micrograms in a multi-dose flu vial. Numbers like those land hard when the appointment is for your own child, which is where naming what you are feeling before you weigh it earns its place. The calmest place to check any of it is the paperwork. The maker must print the full contents and whatever turned up in testing, so ask for that leaflet before an appointment and read it yourself.
What a comparator group tells you about a safety trial
The contributors argue that the most useful question about any trial is what the other group received. Across the products they discuss, they say none was tested against an inert saline placebo. Their example is Gardasil, compared against an aluminium-containing formulation. On their reading, any harm caused by the aluminium showed up in both arms and cancelled out.
Ty Bollinger traces the trial history of one product line. The comparator used as the placebo for Prevnar 20 was Prevnar 13. For Prevnar 13 it was Prevnar 7, and for Prevnar 7 it was an investigative meningococcal vaccine. Each generation was measured against the one before it, so his conclusion is that the line has never had a truly inert control group.
Bollinger pairs this with a 2010 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It reviewed 167 placebo-controlled trials. The placebo contents were spelled out in 8.2 percent of the drug trials, and in 26.7 percent of the vaccine trials. Jefferey Jaxen adds that hepatitis B licensure rested on trials observing infants for five days at one manufacturer and four at another. Whatever you make of the conclusions, the two questions themselves travel well. Who was in the other arm, and what did the trial actually count as a result?
Where the physicians look when they compare patient groups
Several of the physicians describe building comparisons inside their own practices. Paul Thomas compared 560 unvaccinated children against nearly 3,000 variably vaccinated ones in his Oregon practice. He reports that every measured outcome favoured the unvaccinated group. He notes his medical licence was suspended five days after the study appeared online. Greg Glaser describes a separate study covering 1,482 unvaccinated Americans, where the adults came out twelve times healthier on its own scoring and the children eleven times.
Their proposed mechanism turns on how the material enters. A needle skips past the wet linings of nose, mouth and gut, which are the tissues that would ordinarily vet anything arriving from outside. What follows is an antibody response, and that is the thing trials measure. Several contributors split two words apart on that basis. Vaccination, to them, means the antibody response to an injected antigen. Immunisation means durable whole-system memory. This is exactly the sort of claim to put in front of a doctor rather than act on alone.
The recovery steps the physicians describe, with their doses
The recovery material is where the documentary gets unusually specific. Peter McCullough names nattokinase, an enzyme from fermented soybeans, at 2,000 fibrinolytic units twice daily on an empty stomach. He describes it as degrading spike protein itself, rather than only its effects. Serrapeptase and lumbrokinase are added where abnormal clotting is suspected. His distinction is that the familiar anticoagulants hold back fresh clotting but leave whatever has already formed sitting where it is.
For heavy metals, the protocols use zeolite, chlorella, cilantro, activated charcoal and chelation with EDTA, DMSA or DMPS, which bind a metal so it can be excreted. Sherri Tenpenny's liver protocol pairs N-acetyl cysteine with milk thistle to raise glutathione, adding MSM and charcoal. Thomas Lodi gives vitamin C as eight to twelve grams of sodium ascorbate in a litre of water, sipped across the day rather than taken at once. His reasoning is that the gut absorbs only about 150 milligrams at a time.
These are named agents at named doses, which makes them checkable, and it also makes them worth checking. Chelation in particular is a clinical procedure with real risks, and several of these agents interact with prescription medication. None of this is medical advice. Take the protocol to a qualified practitioner and test your own heavy-metal burden first, which is what the contributors themselves recommend. Where someone is carrying a situation they cannot shift alone, that is the ground my one-to-one work on a single stuck situation covers.
How to make a vaccine decision from a settled place
The ethical argument rests on two ideas. One is consent, which the contributors trace back to the Nuremberg Code written in response to the forced medical experiments of the Second World War. For consent to mean anything, on that reading, you have to be told the upside, told the risks, and left genuinely free to say no. The second is terrain theory, credited to the nineteenth-century French scientist Béchamp, which proposes that your overall nutritional and immune resilience shapes how your body handles any exposure.
Turned into action, that framework is refreshingly concrete. Read the insert before an appointment. Where the option exists, you can ask about single-antigen vaccines spaced across separate visits, and about preservative-free single-dose vials. Test your own heavy-metal burden before deciding. And find the exemption pathway in your jurisdiction well before you need it, checking current rules through official channels rather than any single source, this article included.
What holds the whole framework together is the state you decide from. Fear pushes people toward whichever voice is loudest, and a scary headline can hijack an otherwise careful person. The steadiest readers of a source like this are not the ones who swallow every claim, nor the ones who dismiss it unread. They are the ones who can hold a frightening possibility long enough to check it properly.
If a specific decision is weighing on you right now, you can write to me and steady the worry before you weigh any protocol. To test a particular claim, you can put your own question to the chat and pull an answer drawn from this source and others. Ask about a named ingredient, a dose, or a study the documentary cites. Then weigh what comes back with your doctor beside you.