By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | October 18, 2021

IN A recent lecture titled ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Safety and Pivot to Early Treatment: Risks of Scientific Censorship and Reprisal’, and a veritable tour de force, Dr Peter McCullough described his emerging understanding of the ‘catastrophe’ of Covid-19 ‘gene-transfer’ vaccines, the ‘loaded weapon’ of the spike protein they produce, and the high effectiveness of early Covid treatments, tragically denied by governments.

The video of the lecture can be seen here, with a summary provided by Cracknewz.

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/YrYzHaQnMfzP/?feature=oembed#?secret=DZKlL7FUvh

Today we publish the first section of our edited transcript (subsequent parts will follow over the rest of the week) in which Dr McCullough expresses his deep sense of unease at the stripping of his academic titles and at the inexplicable and unprecedented absence of any safety precautions or monitoring of the novel emergency authorised vaccines.

***

Part 1: Cancelled for telling the truth

I think the reason why everybody is here is we have a sense that something very bad is going on in the world. And I’m here to tell you, I think it is. And . . . it’s influencing all of us, each and every one of us. And it may have started a long time ago. I’m not an expert on this at all, and I know people are working on this. But somehow we’ve all been drawn into this and it’s affecting us. And I think we all have a sense of urgency that now’s the time, now’s the time when things look relatively normal around us in terms of the bricks and mortar and our social structures and our employment, it’s relatively normal now. And I think all of us have a sense it’s not going to be normal soon with the pace that things are moving. So now’s the time, everyone’s asking what can they do? If you feel tension right now and you feel some emotional distress, and if you feel as if things aren’t going right . . . right now, I think your perceptions are correct. And if your perceptions are correct, now’s the time for action.

I’ve recently taken a position as a chief medical adviser for the Truth for Health Foundation, which is a foundation centred out of Tucson, Arizona, which is dedicated to exactly what we’re doing right now. I am the president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, and I’ve been the president for five years. I helped form that organisation. I donated to it. I think I’m going to be stripped of that title with . . . within a week. I’m the editor-in-chief of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. I think I will be stripped of that within a month. Today, I was stripped of the editorship of Cardiorenal Medicine, a Swiss-based journal. And in the last year, I have lost my job at a major health system with no explanation and no due process. I’ve been stripped of every title that I’ve ever had in that institution. I’ve received a threat letter from the American College of Physicians . . .

So whatever’s happening is happening [is] because of our efforts to have some scientific interchange. We are participating in a topic of public importance – that’s the reason why every table [here] is full. What we are doing is lawful. What’s not lawful and what’s not right is what’s happening with respect to censorship and the threat of reprisal.

I’m the senior associate editor of American Journal of Cardiology and if Bill Roberts can keep me in there, I’ll hang in there. My tagline is America Out Loud, talk radio.  . . . I am from Texas originally, I went to Baylor University undergraduate, then UT Southwestern. I went on to the University of Washington in Seattle. I came to Michigan. I did three years of general internal medicine actually in Grayling area to pay back my student loans . . . And then I went to University of Michigan School of Public Health and got my Master’s degree in epidemiology. I was kind of trained to do this public health work. I joined Beaumont Hospital under Dr Joel Kahn and Bill O’Neill, and I trained in cardiology. I took my first job at Henry Ford, was the programme director at Henry Ford, became the Chief of Cardiology at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. Returned to Beaumont, was a division chief for a long time. Was the chief academic scientific officer for St John Providence Health System and then moved on. I wanted to finish up down in Texas and I held wonderful positions in Texas.

But I’m not new to the national scene. Even early on when I was at Henry Ford, I was on President Clinton’s advisory panel to health care. When I was at Beaumont, I testified in front of the Congressional Oversight Panel regarding a product label expansion of drugs, and I was on C-SPAN for seven hours getting fried by the senators. So I wasn’t new to this. But what’s new to me now is to be in a position of – and I’ll take it – of authority. OK, I’ll take it because somebody has to. [applause from audience]

I had a window last year when this whole thing started, I had a window to America through a Republican journal, The Hill. And I’m kind of a middle of the road person. I’m not a really hardcore right winger, but The Hill took me and I was a regular contributor to The Hill. And then I changed over and actually started my own radio programme on America Out Loud talk radio, The McCullough Report, because I needed the window. In our medical field, we publish in journals to each other, doctors and scientists. We talk to each other. But the public is largely excluded from that big conversation.

And our journal publications are slow. We’re talking two to five years to get something in print. You know, this thing hit us. We needed to get now. We needed to get things published now. We needed speed because it’s a mass casualty situation. So that’s what this is all about. These letters behind my name, I predict, will be progressively erased. I took one off there this week. It’s going to happen. It’s going to happen because there’s powerful forces at work, far more powerful than we can possibly think of, that are influencing anybody who is in a position of authority. And I already told you, I’m going to take authority.

So the first authoritative position I’m going to take is this: as an American and as a consumer, for new biologic products, demand safety, safety, safety . . . safety . . . We have a situation where there has been an injection of a substance into half of Americans’ bodies. And there’s yet to be a report to America on (its) safety. Astonishing.

Well, it wasn’t the case back in 1976, there’s Gerald Ford getting his swine flu vaccine, right, swine flu in 1976. We got to 25 deaths, 550 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is ascending paralysis. There were 55million Americans vaccinated, 220million people in the country at that time. [They] shut it down. Not safe. It was very transparent. Americans were watching. Sure, there was some controversy: were the deaths related, not related? It didn’t matter. Unexplained deaths didn’t matter. Shut down the programme. [It was] not safe. It was considered a debacle . . . and it went down as a debacle . . .

In my view, we’ve been gambling. We’ve watched a gamble go on in our country. And the gamble has gone like this: this virus came in and we’re going to test out some new tech, and we’re going to gamble with, not just America, we’re going to gamble with the world. This is a gamble of extraordinary, extraordinary implications. We didn’t have to and we don’t have to, but we did. And this is the gamble. The gamble is genetic gene transfer technology. The FDA considers the current American vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson as gene transfer tech. That’s what it is, it’s gene transfer tech.

There were 24 of these platforms that have been around for decades. They were all designed to transfer genetic information. Most of the time, just to transfer in the RNA to produce a missing protein. For instance, a deficiency disease called Fabry disease, a deficiency of α-galactosidase. I ran the programme in Dallas on this, an interesting medical problem. But it was just simply a way of producing their deficient enzyme. Seems pretty harmless, right? Give the cells an injection of messenger RNA about once a month, maybe once every three months, and then the body could make this needed protein. Okay? There’s been other ones. There’s been attempts in heart failure, in cancer. The only messenger RNA gene transfer technology drug that’s on the market is called Patisiran, and that is a drug that produces a small interfering messenger RNA that interferes with the production of what’s called transthyretin, which is a protein that causes amyloidosis, which is a medical condition.

So we actually do have one of these on the market, but there’s 24 others that have largely been losers, and they’ve been losers in many ways because they couldn’t produce enough of the deficient protein, or they couldn’t actually be reverse transcribed and produced the gene that’s needed to install on the genome.

But these were ready to go, and the adenoviral DNA shown on the left of the screen here. That’s Johnson & Johnson. So that’s an adenoviral vector where these replication incompetent virions come in and they inject DNA into the cytoplasm. The DNA is taken up into the nucleus. From the nucleus, the messenger RNA for the Wuhan spike protein is produced. That messenger RNA then produces the spike protein. But because it’s not a synthetic RNA, it actually is digested within RNA [unclear]. But the issue is, there’s so much of the DNA that goes into the nucleus, there is so much of its persistent effect that Johnson & Johnson can basically get by with one shot, which is amazing. So it is a ton, I can tell you right now, from a genetic perspective, it’s a ton of material that’s going into the human body.

With the messenger RNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna are different. These are synthetic messenger RNAs. They have what’s called a nucleoside analogue cap at the three prime and five prime end. And those caps are sturdy. Normally, a messenger RNA is used once it’s disposed of – used, once disposed of. This one is used over and over and over again and stays in the cells for a long time. We don’t know how long, but it looks long. It looks very long.

And we are working with scientists all over the world. And there is a belief now that the messenger RNA can survive cell division so a parent cell can give it to daughter cells. And it looks like the messenger RNA can actually be transferred in little packets called microsomes to other cells. So it’s not just a mosaic of cells that gets the messenger RNA. It may be much more proliferative than that. And the messenger RNA itself is used over and over again to produce the spike protein. The spike protein is the little red characters there. And when they’re expressed on the cell surface, that’s an abnormal protein.

For the first time in human history, we have a biologic product that’s telling our body to produce an abnormal protein. You know, the design of this was to produce a normal protein, but this is to produce an abnormal protein. It’s not just an abnormal protein, it’s the [unclear] or the spine on the surface of the virus. The virus is the ball. The little spines, you’ve seen a million cartoons of it, that’s the spike protein. 1,200 amino acids, probably about eight to 12 glycosylation sites and two major segments to it, S1 in S2 and what connects them is what’s called the furin cleavage joint.

The furin cleavage joint is what was manipulated, we believe, with gain of function research in the lab in China. So in this little red character here, which looks pretty benign, it is kind of a loaded weapon, if you will. And what I mean by weapon, it’s now known that the spike protein itself is independently pathogenic. It causes damage itself, okay? And I think everyone accepts this. When I mean damage, it damages the cells in which it’s produced. When it’s on the cell surface, the body immediately recognises it’s not supposed to be there and attacks. When the spike protein breaks free, which it does, it circulates in the human body for about two weeks. In a paper by Ogata and colleagues – this is being filmed and this is going to be fact-checked, so I want the fact-checkers to see that – Ogata et al, Harvard circulates in measurable and plasma for two weeks after a messenger RNA vaccination. After the second shot, it’s no longer measurable, probably because the antibodies produced dampen it down. It doesn’t mean the spike protein is gone. We don’t know how long the cells produce the abnormal spike protein.

It would have been wonderful if the spike protein just stayed in the arm. If the deposit, the 1cc injection in the arm, and if the production of the spike protein would have just stayed in the arm and the immune reaction stay in the arm, that would have been, I think, the best possible scenario for these vaccines. Not the case. When the Ogata paper broke, everyone said, ‘Oh boy, now the spike protein is circulating.’ Okay? Then, when the first man who took the vaccine, he took shot one, shot two, when he died in Germany and had an autopsy, the question was: where is the spike protein being produced in the body? And that’s when that autopsy hit and it was in the brain. It was in the heart. It was in all the essential organs. We knew we were in trouble. We knew we were in trouble.

Never once did we have a vaccine or any injection in the human body that got distributed via lipid nanoparticles throughout the body within a matter of weeks and then set up shop to produce a damaging protein. This protein circulates. It damages organs. It damages endothelial cells. Blood cells. It causes blood clotting. There is a wealth of scientific papers on this. There’s nothing about the spike protein that’s good. These little red characters here on the slide are lethal. They’re lethal.

They play a part in the fatal nature of the natural infection. And the Chinese have published a ton of studies on this. Everything we learn about the spike protein is bad. There’s a paper now showing the spike protein interacts strongly with the p53 and the BRCA genes, which are the cancer genes in the human body.

Now, if you’re going to have spike protein for a day or two, a week or two, probably not a big deal, but if you’re going to have a spike protein on shot one and shot two and shot three and shot four, in year one, in year two, in year three, who can imagine what’s going to happen to the human body? How many runs can a human body take with a potentially lethal pathogenic spike protein that was manipulated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and now available for human consumption by injection across the world?

That’s what we know about these vaccines. Everything we know about it, you would agree, is a dangerous mechanism of action. We’re late on this, we’re late, but we got this in press, Bruno and colleagues, 57 authors, 17 countries, where the title of the paper is ‘SARS-CoV-2 Mass Vaccination: Urgent Questions On Safety’. Highlighted parts there: if we don’t have safety boards, data safety monitoring boards, critical event committees, human ethics committees assigned to these programmes, we have no hope of shutting this down or even evaluating for safety.

I’ve chaired over 24 data safety monitoring boards. I chair two for the National Institutes of Health right now. I know what I’m talking about. I know about data. I have over 650 publications in the National Library of Medicine, 45 on Covid. I’ve reviewed more reports and made more inferences on scientific data, I think, than anybody in the world right now and certainly in my field – in heart and kidney disease – in history. I’m not fooling around when I say our governments owed it to us from the beginning to have a data safety monitoring board. Where’s the DSMB? The data safety monitoring board is an independent group of experts without a stake in the outcome. The sponsors of the US programme are the FDA, the CDC and then, behind them, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. None of those entities are qualified or capable or even ethically charged to evaluate mortality or outcomes. They personally have a stake in the outcome of this. We never let the company decide on causality of a problem. We never let a company tell us if a product is safe. We always have external bodies.

And by the way, when these came through the clinical trials, there were data safety monitoring boards. And over two months, when they select relatively healthy populations, they did look okay after two months. The problem is, once they got broadly used in the population, we realised, holy smokes, we not only don’t have a data safety monitoring board – you know everyone’s asked to sign the consent form, saying they’re in a clinical investigation, it does say that – we actually didn’t have any guard-rails on this to . . . if a problem was there, to be able to tell America and tell the world, ‘Listen, we’ve got a problem. We’ve got to do something about it.’ Okay? We didn’t have the fundamental safety mechanism.

Historians will write about this. Okay? This is kind of like Tuskegee. There was a terrible experiment, there’s been terrible historical things. Not having a data safety monitoring board will go down in history as a colossal mis-step in public health. How in the world can we take the sponsors of the programme – the FDA, the CDC, Pfizer, Moderna – and let them be in charge of safety? And even worse, how can we let them not ever produce a safety report, never do a safety press briefing? Nothing.

The messenger RNA or adenoviral DNA, the production of the spike protein is a dangerous mechanism of action. It injures cells, tissues and organ and endothelial damage, and we have papers to support that all the way. The spike protein circulates at least for two weeks. Body fluid, donated blood, that explains the shedding events that . . . you know so well. No genotoxicity, teratogenicity or oncogenicity studies. They wouldn’t be needed for vaccines from a regulatory perspective, but they would for gene transfer technologies.

There’s a concerning reduced fertility study by Moderna submitted to the European Medical Association. Fertility did go down in animals. It wasn’t a huge drop, but it was real. There was a concerning biodistribution study, Pfizer in Japan, where the lipid nanoparticles hyper-concentrated in the ovaries. As the Chinese had shown us a couple of years earlier with a paper by Ning and colleagues. As I mentioned, there are no safety committees. No restriction of properly excluded patients from the trials.

When the trials were done, they properly excluded the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J, for a reason. Exclusions must be justified with all the regulatory authorities and the Office for Human Research Protections for a reason. Pregnant women, women of childbearing potential who cannot not guarantee contraception, Covid-recovered, suspected Covid-recovered, those with severe allergies. Why are they excluded? You have to justify it. The two reasons to exclude patients from clinical trials is: no opportunity for benefit and excess opportunity for harm. And these groups were excluded.

When we finish a study and a drug is on the market, we never just let the excluded groups get the drug on a whim. Or, ‘Why don’t we just try it out now?’ There’s never been a drug where we say, ‘You know, we kept pregnant women out of it. It could be dangerous. Let’s just go ahead and give it to them.’ Never. That should be an alarm bell. The behaviour of doctors and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology that says to vaccinate women with no randomised trials safety data ought to be a giant alarm bell going off.

Alarming. That’s a bellwether. Pregnant women and the foetus are the special situation in medicine. We have pregnancy categories for this. We bend over backwards. We only use drugs where we have lots of years of experience. We know they’re safe in pregnant women. We only allow inactivated flu, tetanus and pertussis, all inactivated. That’s it. That’s it. And I published an opinion editorial . . . where I said, ‘Listen, this is pregnancy Category X. Any new seizure drug, any new diabetes drug – no different, no different. This should be alarming.’

I have a lot of interaction with doctors. I don’t have a single doctor who can look me in the eye and support what’s being done to pregnant women. What I see in their eyes is fear, shame, guilt. They know they’re wrong, but they’re confused, and they can’t seem to understand why they’re wrong. Doctors and those with them – and there’s a lot with them – are in a trance right now. They’re in a trance. They’re in a mass psychosis. And it’s worldwide.

***

Part 2: The vaccines are killing people

YESTERDAY we published the first part of an edited transcript of a recent lecture delivered by Dr Peter McCullough in which he highlighted the astonishing absence of safety precautions and safety monitoring in relation to the experimental Covid vaccines. Today he explains there is no system – nothing – to protect the American people from vaccine damage.

What’s going on in the minds of these doctors and health care providers is the same. It’s what I call lockstep. They’re in lockstep. They’re thinking the same way. They’re frightened. They’re confused. They’re kind of scrambled. They can’t really explain or justify what they’re doing. Even awful things like in Scandinavia, like euthanasia for the seniors is going on. They can’t explain it. And they’re fearful.

And I ask them, ‘Do you know who Tony Fauci is? Do you know who Bill G [is] ?’ They don’t even know this. I say, ‘Are you on Twitter?’, ‘No, we’re not on Twitter here.’ So it’s not going through social media, you guys, it’s not going through Twitter, it’s not going through the Gates Foundation, it’s not going through Pfizer . . . something’s in the minds of people and it’s global. And they’re in lockstep. And there’s a tiny fraction of people whose eyes are clear, their ears hear and they understand what’s going on.

The most, most egregious thing is there have been no attempts to present or mitigate risks.

All of you in pharmaceutical companies, as soon as there’s one or two deaths, there’s an immediate investigation. ‘What happened?’ We figure out maybe it interacts with other drugs, maybe there’s some background conditions. Maybe if somebody already had Covid, maybe that’s really the problem and we tried to vaccinate on top of that, which we shouldn’t. [There’s] no attempts to mitigate risks.

If anybody asks your opinion on the vaccines, I suggest you start with this: say, ‘Listen, I’m concerned there’s been no report card. The CDC and FDA hold all the data’ . . . Demand a report card. Until we get transparency of data, this thing is not going to be corrected.

January 22nd, we had a problem, at 27.1million Americans [vaccinated] we hit 182 deaths. This is VAERS system – Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system – this is the weekly update. These are the permanent VAERS number, remember, a form gets filled out, 80 per cent of the time it’s filled out by a doctor or nurse who thinks the vaccine caused the injury. It gets assigned a temporary VAERS number. The CDC calls, and the CDC verifies that it happened. Okay? These are permanent: 182 deaths.

We normally get 158 deaths a year, every year, in the system. That’s kind of the average, about 158 deaths across 70 vaccines. I just had one two days ago, I had a flu shot. We give 278million vaccines in the United States per year, 70 different vaccines. I’m not anti-vaccine. I’ve taken all the vaccines. I’ve been in India. I’ve taken even more vaccines. I’m telling you, 182 – if I was chairing a data safety monitoring board – and I probably should have, honestly – I would have shut down the programme with my committee. I’d say, ‘Listen, there’s too many deaths, we’ve got a mortality signal.’ Any one of you in pharmaceuticals know this, there’s been many drugs that never made it to market because of unexplained deaths. Okay? It didn’t stop there . . .

And so here we are, as of . . . a week ago: 14,506 deaths – and look at the numbers – over 200,000 hospitalisations, office visits or other urgent visits. You’ve heard of people scornfully talk about the unvaccinated in a hospital. But what about the vaccinated contributing to health care costs? Look at the vaccinated. Unfortunately, sadly, 18,439 permanently disabled people. That cost them. That costs society. That costs all of us.

When the CDC and FDA reviewed myocarditis in June, I was on both of those calls. And I can tell you they were only looking at 200 cases. They now have 5,371 cases. The FDA has official warnings on this. The FDA is trying to tell mothers and fathers, ‘Don’t vaccinate your children. Warning, warning myocarditis can occur.’ 200 cases in June. 5,307 verified cases. I had one in my practice. Young guy going to college, he’s just trying to do the right thing. He wasn’t sure; he took the vaccine. Now he’s got SD segment elevation, sky high troponins, early left ventricular dysfunction, chest pain. He has to go on heart failure medications and colchicine and steroids and has three months of care and more EKGs and more echoes and this and that. And his parents are distraught and the tension is going up and up. The CDC officer called me to verify that that’s real. And I said, ‘Yeah’.  We went through it. He goes, ‘Okay.’  So, my patient is part of that 5,371. How many more do we need to convince people?

There is a paper published by Jennifer Hogue that’s an analysis that has concluded that the chances of, with a young person under 30 getting the vaccine, the chances of being hospitalised with myocarditis – which my patient had happen – is greater than that child being hospitalised with Covid-19. You can’t make this thing up. It’s not a proposition that anyone would take, it wouldn’t. The temporal relationship – and this is shot one and shot two aggregated over time – the temporal relationship to getting the shot and death is exquisite . . . is exquisite. We now know from multiple independent analysis, people got frustrated because the CDC and FDA is not giving us the data. People got it and analysed [it]. 50 per cent of the deaths occur within 48 hours. 80 per cent of deaths occur within a week. They are tightly temporally related. McLachlan, from Queen Mary University in London, has concluded, by having independent reviewers review a representative sample of the deaths, 86 per cent of the deaths have no other explanation. Now on two occasions, in March and in June, the CDC, with no fanfare, put out on their website that CDC and FDA doctors, quote, ‘reviewed all the deaths and none were related to the vaccine’ unquote.

I can tell you, I do this [type of] work for Big Pharma, for biotech and the NIH. Reviewing deaths takes a lot of time. All the hospital charts, all the labs, all the EKGs, the paramedics [unclear], what have you. It takes for ever. Two separate reviewers, then you have to have an adjudication process. For them to whip this up, with thousands and thousands of deaths, is not believable. And in March was the first time where I developed a conclusion of what’s going on is malfeasance, wrongdoing by those in positions of authority. And I think historians, historians will go back and look at this. This includes the deaths that occur in the vaccine centre. You know, people are on their phones and they’re doing CPR in the vaccine centre. Even those weren’t related to the vaccine?

Now there have been some nursing home studies, one by [?] I believe in Denmark, and another one done, a similar type of analysis where in a nursing home setting, the conclusion was by independent reviewers where they actually had the charts, maybe 40 per cent of the deaths were really directly attributable to the vaccine and that there were other processes that played a role. Whether it’s 4 per cent, 40 per cent or 86 per cent, it’s way too high. And unfortunately, our seniors are bearing the brunt of this. The seniors are the ones we are trying to protect. They’re the ones who are dying after the vaccine. It’s pretty clear. It’s a steep, age-related phenomenon. Now, this paper, recently out by [?] and colleagues, have pitted the Covid-19 respiratory deaths and the seven-day Covid-19 vaccine deaths on these two figures. And even though the y axis is much different, the age relationship is the same, meaning the spike protein is probably the lethal nature of it. And it’s a matter of dose and duration and all the complications.

The is: why are we vaccinating children? And in this analysis, it’s interesting, the paper actually goes through the entire age ranges. The conclusion of the paper you could draw is, if someone actually takes the Covid-19 vaccine for death as an outcome, one is actually more likely to die of the vaccine death than actually taking their chances of acquiring Covid-19 and dying of Covid-19. It is astonishing, because when you take the vaccine, it’s completely deterministic, right? It’s a 100 per cent chance it’s in your body. But people at this point in time, people who are contemplating taking the vaccine, they’ve lived a year and a half without getting Covid-19. Do you know what that means? That means that they’ve been dodging it pretty good . . .

But the point is, 15 per cent they actually can’t get Covid. They can’t get Covid. And a leading theory is maybe they have cross-immunity from other coronaviruses. But leading work by Dr Sabine Hazan in Ventura Hills, California, has shown that people who don’t get Covid, even they get exposed – and all of you clinically know this – if you have a household of six people in a house, it’s not six for six with Covid, never. It’s always one or two people don’t get it. And the reason is probably the microbiome. Believe it or not, those of you with a healthy microbiome, it can be scored according to grades of microbiome, and one of the leading good-guy bacteria is called Bifidobacterium, it is amazing that those with high Bifidobacterium, high microbiome scores can’t get Covid-19. And even the CDC agrees – 15 per cent of people, they estimate, cannot get Covid-19. Because when you take it in the nose and mouth, you’re always constantly swallowing, it gets in the GI tract right away.

I personally had Covid in October of 2020, and I was in a research study that was actually doing sequencing, and I was in an FDA-approved protocol. So I know I had the British variant, the Alpha variant, and I know they sequenced it from what came out. So it’s interesting.

So what’s happened over time is this vaccine has become weaponised, just like the kids can get myocarditis. It’s not right and it’s not rare. The other thing I think is malfeasance is to call anything ‘rare’. We never do that in clinical research. Never. The correct term in safety, pharmacovigilance, is ‘tip of the iceberg’. Whatever we’re seeing now in sporadic reporting is ‘tip of the iceberg’. VAERS could be an under-representation by a hundred-fold or even more. We think – we’ve done some analysis on this using CMS – we think on mortality, maybe it’s a multiplier of five. But the point is we never would say ‘rare’. And what the CDC has done, I think very, very disingenuously, is when they had 200 cases in June, they divided it by everybody who took the vaccine and said, ‘It’s rare.’ Well, you can’t do that unless you check everybody for myocarditis, unless you do an EKG and troponin.

You can’t declare that they don’t have myocarditis unless you check for it. But Jessica Rose, in her first paper, showed that it’s cardiovascular, neurological and immunological [that] are the main non-fatal syndromes, and as shown here, they skew towards younger people, probably because the genetic material is more avidly taken up in younger cells. And so those cells, it depends on where the mosaic is, where they can express the spike protein in damage. And it’s very possible that those who have a greater uptake in the brain are going to express the neurologic complications, those that have uptake in the heart express cardiovascular, et cetera.

So without pharmaceutical protection from the pharmaceutical laws, about deaths and about data safety monitoring boards and about pharmacovigilance, the vaccines will do more harm, right? So we don’t have anything to protect the American people. That’s the reason why everybody’s so on edge. Where’s the protection of our people? That’s what our agencies are supposed to do. And right now, that is being completely abrogated.

So the vaccines have been considered not safe on either side of the Atlantic. This is not just an American problem. So the evidence-based consulting group in the UK – and Tess Lawrie is one of the leaders – but they are the principal consulting group to the World Health Organisation. I’m telling you they’re legit. They are very legit. They have analysed the [UK] Yellow Card system. And the Yellow Card system is just like our VAERS system. So it’s a good external validation of, is what (I am) saying, you know, tractable. Her conclusion: an immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required, whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of harms – Dr Tess Lawrie in May of 2021. 

So in medicine, we have what’s called Hill Bradford tenets of causality. When we see something bad going on and we’re using a drug or biologic product, we have to ask the question: is it actually causing the problem? And so the tenets of causality say, is there a temporal relationship? I showed you that: it’s really strongly related in time. This doesn’t happen any old time, it happens pretty much right when you get the shots. Is it internally consistent? Yeah. Death, all the other nonfatal events. Is it externally consistent? Sure: US, UK, EU. Okay. Is there a tractable, biologically plausible mechanism of action of how the vaccines could actually kill a human being? You betcha. If we get a vigorous uptake of the material and a vigorous run with the spike protein in a susceptible body, can it be lethal? Of course it can. Just like the virus can be lethal, and just like the same people who are dying with the virus are dying with the vaccine, it makes sense. It satisfies Bradford Hill tenets of causality. There’s no question about it. The vaccines are causally related to some, if not the majority, of everything you’re seeing here. I can tell you as a scientist, as a doctor, as an epidemiologist trained at University of Michigan School of Public Health, I can tell you with every fibre of my body, these vaccines are doing this. They are doing this. And anybody who tries to brush this off, ‘Oh, they’re not related’, what have you, I’m telling you, you have layer after layer of tractability in your analysis.

***

Part 3: How they cooked the books

This the third part of an edited transcript of a recent lecture delivered by Dr Peter McCullough. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here. Today’s section starts with his explanation of the sleight of hand by which the Pfizer vaccine won FDA approval before going on to discuss the implications of vaccine’s limited efficacy.

PFIZER was not approved. And this meeting that happened on August 23rd, it was Pfizer, it was the FDA [but] there was no academic advisory board and no independent presenters – [it was] a closed meeting. And they looked at the data. And what happened . . . probably will go down as one of the greatest regulatory sleights of hand, regulatory malfeasance of all time. Pfizer got a continuation of the Emergency Use Authorisation, not approval. BioNTech – it was a shared intellectual property product – BioNTech got split off and said, ‘Oh, they have a separate product that’s a legally distinct product. It may be medicinally distinct.’ BioNTech gets conditional approval, but it doesn’t exist yet in the United States, it gets a draft package insert, which is very scant, with a lot of post-marketing obligations for myocarditis information that basically says, ‘We don’t know if this is safe in pregnancy at all.’ And what came out of that meeting was a talking point that Pfizer was approved. That went all the way up to the President of the United States. Pfizer was approved.

That triggered an entire wave of vaccine mandates for a product that was thought to be approved when it really wasn’t. And the person who signed the letter to BioNTech Comirnaty – the product that doesn’t exist yet, that got conditional approval – Dr Gruber, within a week resigns from the FDA.

I’m telling you, anybody can tell that something is deeply wrong in the regulatory environment in the United States . . . These sequences of events will go down in history as American lives were lost. There’s been a failure of these vaccines to do what they’re supposed to do. When they came out of clinical trials, I was testifying in the US Senate on November 19th and I’ll never forget, I was a lead witness, and our final question was, ‘Doctors, do you have any question regarding the Covid-19 vaccines?’ All I knew on November 19th of 2020 was that the vaccines [was] by press release – and I think it was Pfizer first – that they had 90 per cent vaccine efficacy. But the rates of Covid-19 in both placebo and vaccine groups were less than 1 per cent.

How could that be? I mean, November, we were stoking, we had, you know, I think our laboratory rates went 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent, you know, there was a lot of Covid in November and there was a ton in December. How could they have done trials where people’s rates of Covid-19 were less than 1 per cent? That’s what we knew from the press release. So I will never forget, I was recovering from Covid myself. I had this smothering N95 mask, I was on the Senate floor and I literally just sat there and I said nothing. And Harvey Risch next to me and George Fareed next to me – nothing, not a statement. I’m so glad I didn’t say anything because things, as they played out, what we saw in the clinical trials was the following: that there [were] very few hospitalisations and deaths, but there was no benefit at all. There were a few cases of Bell’s palsy, but there weren’t any of these horrific vaccine deaths or these horrific strokes or myocarditis, what have you. They looked pretty clean out of clinical trials.

So people would ask me, ‘What do you think about the vaccines?’ I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t have a choice. The patients can take them if they want to.’ So I didn’t recommend them or not recommend them. And 70 per cent of my practice – I practise non-invasive cardiology and internal medicine, I maintain my boards in both, as long as I can maintain my board in both – took the vaccine. 70 per cent took the vaccine. People in my family took the vaccine. They did it patriotically. Some of them – remember, there were no mandates back then. No mandates. And people were actually waiting for the vaccine. What’s happened? Well, it turns out that with the legacy data in this recent paper by MMWR, that the vaccine efficacy held up. Moderna turns out to be at 120 days post vaccine, 92 per cent vaccine efficacy. Pfizer 77 per cent. And Janssen 68 per cent – that’s Johnson & Johnson. Now these aren’t randomised data, but they try to calculate using fair statistics in a population. This is the first data, by the way, that the CDC has released with respect to differential vaccine efficacy. Right? So is one better?

Remember, they keep telling you, ‘Just take a shot.’ You say, ‘Well, which one should I take?’ ‘Well, just take any one.’ Oh, come on, we’re Americans. We like to make choices, right? So this is your first official . . . so you see, you’d think they’d come out on the news at least and tell you this, right? But this . . . so it looks pretty good. But there’s no safety data in this manuscript, and I can tell you, look at the numbers 15, 17, 14. Look at the denominators. Wait a minute. You’ve had 168million people take the vaccines. You know, these are pretty scant data. And in the text of it, there are six major limitations.

Number four, take a look at it. ‘The vaccine efficacy estimates were adjusted for relative potential confounders.’ And by the way, the outcome on the previous side was hospitalisations, but ‘residual confounding is possible’. Let me tell you a residual confounder. You know what determines who gets hospitalised or who doesn’t get hospitalised in United States? If they got early treatment. That’s what makes a difference. Not, not a vaccine. [applause] So take a look at these papers. Every single paper that makes a claim on a vaccine prevents hospitalisation and death. Your next question is, ‘Who received early treatment and who didn’t?’ ‘Oh, we didn’t think of that. Sorry.’ Give me the next paper, because it’s not legit. And look at fifth, ‘Product specific vaccine efficacy by variant, including the Delta variant, was not evaluated.’

Well, let me tell you what, the Delta is brand new. We have what’s called legacy data, and then we have Delta. And right now we’re 99 per cent Delta and everything, everything you saw in that slide is obsolete. And the failure of the vaccines, and truth revealed, happened a few months ago in July. This was a British naval vessel. 3,700 fully vaccinated sailors go out, they go in the Mediterranean, they stop at, I think the island of Crete, sailors had a little fun, before you know it, there’s a breakout on the boat – note sailors, no girls – on the boat, breakout, Delta, and they’re passing it to each other. Right in line with this, there was a Houston wedding, a fully vaccinated wedding – you guys have been involved in these family things, right, where you can’t go to a wedding unless you’re vaccinated? – well terrific, they all went to the wedding vaccinated and sure enough, there was an outbreak of Delta. There was a private flight, Democratic lawmakers fly from Texas to Washington. They get Delta, and Kamala Harris has to scramble to the Walter Reed to get tested and what have you.

In fact, Farinholt at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, studied the Houston wedding, and he proved that the fully vaccinated can actually acquire and carry and pass to other people Delta. Farinholt proved that. Our CDC director came on TV and told Americans that towards the end of July, saying, ‘Listen, the vaccines can’t stop Delta,’ she said it herself. And in fact, the CDC has told us this. Barnstable County in Massachusetts, here’s an outbreak, people in congregate settings. The light blue is the fully vaccinated? What’s the problem here? The fully vaccinated are more of the Covid contagion than the unvaccinated? This is the CDC telling us this. This isn’t me. This isn’t my opinion. This is the CDC telling us this. Mayo Clinic in Boston, a company [unclear], they have over a million sequenced samples. They had great data from Rochester County, Minnesota, 25,000 individuals. They calculate vaccine efficacy. But look at July as Delta shades in, Moderna is holding up at 76 per cent vaccine efficacy, Pfizer’s at 42 per cent vaccine efficacy. OK?

Pfizer is 30 micrograms of messenger RNA, Moderna is 100 micrograms of messenger RNA. They’re very different products. Our CDC and FDA has not presented that to America, that they’re very different products. We don’t know about Johnson & Johnson, but the differential choice of the products has also been something that has been whitewashed by our agency. ‘Just take a vaccine, take any vaccine. Just get vaxed.’ ‘Well, no. Wait a minute. They are different products.’ Israel, which is probably giving us the best forecast of what we’re going to be like, is telling the story. And you don’t have to be a University of Michigan epidemiologist to figure this out, you guys. Fully vaccinated patients with Covid-19: 86 per cent. Population fully vaccinated, 84.4 per cent. It’s superimposable. The vaccine, Pfizer, 30 micrograms, has completely and totally failed. [applause] We’ve just got to call it. Just call it. You can’t sugar-coat it. You can’t sugar-coat this. This is complete and total failure. Israel’s post-vaccination curve in their country is bigger than their pre-vaccination curve. If you had asked the question, would Israel have been better off not to vaccinate a single person? Answer: yes, from an epidemiology perspective, yes. It is a complete and total failure. What are they doing in Israel? Doubling down. Boosters. They’ve got 11million people in the country. They’ve already boosterised two million people. Guess what? They already have papers published – there’s one from Haifa, Israel – published, already showing booster failures.

I’ve already had one in my clinic. I didn’t realise this until two weekends ago. Two of my Webexing, smart engineer-type people who work on the computer at home have avoided Covid-19, faithfully got Pfizer number one, faithfully Pfizer number two – do you know that earlier this year you could just show up at CVS and Walgreens and get another one and they’d give it to you? What, wait a minute. This is strict regulatory approval. This is Emergency Use Authorisation. You just don’t get a booster for the hell of it. Yeah, you do. Believe it or not, you didn’t need to wait for approvals of boosters on September 17th. People can just do it on their own and CVS and Walgreens and these vaccine centres don’t care. It’s like, the more the merrier. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. These are supposed to be regulated products. How in the world . . . they’re supposed to be keeping track of lot numbers and there’s vaccine cards that are going to dictate the rest of your life and they’re just, for the hell of it, they’re going to give you another shot if you want it? This is unbelievable.

So, they announced to me when I saw them in the office, they go, ‘We already got our boosters.’  I said, ‘Boy, that’s pretty prompt.’ I didn’t say anything, you know, people have their own choice. And sure enough about two weeks later, ‘Oh, I’ve got Covid and my husband’s got Covid.’ And she got Covid, and she’s fully boosterised, so she would have fit that the boosters are not holding because it’s Delta and the vaccines have not been adjusted to cover Delta, which is the most mutated form of the variant.

But the CDC knew about vaccine failures even back on May 25th, where at that time, through community departments of public health, they didn’t have all the cases, but they reported 10,262 cases to the CDC as fully vaccinated Americans who had broken through. 10 per cent were known to be hospitalised and 2 per cent died. I’ll tell you, that’s not good. That’s May 25th. What did the CDC do in response to that? The CDC said, ‘We’re not tracking these failures any more.’ They went on to say, in their website, ‘If you’ve been vaccinated, don’t get any more testing.’ Hospitals followed and said, ‘You know what, if you’ve been vaccinated, we’re not going to test you before your heart cath or your . . . but if you’re unvaccinated, we’re going to test you.’ Some of you are shaking your heads, right?

Then the CDC went even further and said, ‘You know what, the cycle thresholds on the PCR test, if you’ve been vaccinated, we’re only going to count ones where cycle thresholds are low, less than 25, because, you know, we don’t want to get false positive from the vaccine. However, if you’ve been unvaccinated, we’ll take it, anything you want to give us.’ Yeah. So the CDC made some decisions on May 25th of what’s called biased asymmetric reporting. This fabricated the books. It cooked the books to make the vaccine failures look small and make the problem starting May 25th forward look like it was going to be a crisis of the unvaccinated. And we started to hear talking points like, ‘Oh my gosh, the hospitals are filling up and they’re all unvaccinated,’ and people would kind of say ‘unvaccinated’ with kind of a snarl. I’d see that, you know, and if people would hear the reports.

I took a drive from Dallas down to Austin, and I was actually on Alex Jones, anybody watch Alex Jones? [applause] I am not a hardcore right wing guy. My wife says, ‘Don’t go on with him. Don’t go on’, because, you know, Alex Jones, he’s like, ‘Get your guns, get your ammo. They’re coming for us.’ And so I went down there with fear and trepidation. I said, ‘Alex, you know, I’m just a doctor. I just, you know, I’m happy to go on.’ I said, ‘but I don’t have any guns or ammo and . . . and I’m just, you know, I don’t have a red cap or anything.’ And his producers say, ‘Alex, Alex, no stunts, no stunts for Dr McCullough, just . . .’ And so Alex was really good. If you’ve ever seen the video, he was just . . . and it turns out he’s a really smart guy.  He had . . . he has, like, 20 stacks of paper in front of him. He keeps that studio at like 58 degrees, I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me?’ But apparently, he burns off all this energy as he gets wired up. And I said, ‘Alex, do you read all this stuff?’ He goes, ‘Yeah, I read all of it.’ I said, ‘You got to be kidding me.’ He’s a smart guy. And he, basically, he does what he calls stunts. I don’t know if you saw him when he ate a whole packet of ivermectin, you know, he does stunts. [laughter from audience] Alex does stunts to kind of, I guess that’s what they do in media. But for me, it was no stunts. We went over the data and I told him, I said, ‘Listen, this is all set up to be a crisis of the unvaccinated by intentional asymmetric reporting.’ https://freeworldnews.tv/watch?id=6136a2193b76170da9351b95

And everybody bought off on this. But the CDC continues to tell us it’s not. The CDC on July 26 had again, you know, sporadically reported – this isn’t the universe of cases – they had 6,587 fatal or hospitalised cases. And look at this, 19 per cent of them died. These basically came in through hospitals who voluntarily reported to the CDC. A 19 per cent mortality rate in those hospitalised fully-vaccinated is a problem. And anybody who tries to tell you, ‘Oh if you get . . . at least a consolation prize of being vaccinated, is that you have a little easier ride with Covid’, so, wait a minute, this doesn’t look like it’s an easier ride, okay? The CDC, as of August 23rd, told us who’s dying and who’s dying and who’s being hospitalised is people over 65. So we’re back to the seniors. Covid-19 has always been about the seniors, so why in the world has the dialogue for the last nine months been on the children? This is a crisis of the seniors and our seniors have paid the price. Some of them, the ultimate price . . .

To be updated with full edited transcript.

Share this: