All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
56:41
CV19 Vaccines and Excess Mortality - Dr. Peter McCullough on Truth Jihad Radio, Jan. 20, 2023
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm Kevin Barrett and you're listening to Truth Jihad Radio, the show where you can hear the folks who are not marching in lockstep to the mainstream propaganda.
free thinkers like tonight's guest, Dr. Peter McCullough.
If you like this kind of radio, please support it by going to kevinbarrett.substack.com and subscribing.
For six bucks a month, you can get early access to all of these shows and lots of other great stuff.
Hmm.
The highest moment in the last eight years.
Well, I think the most important, the most compelling was 9-11 itself.
The highest moment in the last eight years.
Welcome to the special live edition of Truth Jihad Radio.
I'm Kevin Barrett, doing this show every Friday evening right here on Revolution.Radio, the home of all-out free speech on the internet airwaves.
I try to find the most interesting voices who are calling it the way it is.
Regardless of institutional pressures or outright censorship.
And the two guests tonight are good examples of that.
Second hour guest Peter Myers has a long history of pretty high quality New World Order research behind him.
He's going to talk about Davos and the World Health Organization and related issues.
And some of that may come up in the first hour, too.
I'm very happy to bring back Dr. Peter McCullough, who was on briefly with Jessica Rose a while back, and now he's here for a whole hour.
Dr. McCullough is one of the leading voices of, what shall we call it, COVID truth, or at least well-founded COVID dissent.
He's an internist, a cardiologist, an epidemiologist, He's heavily published, one of the more qualified people in that field.
Certainly somebody who should have a right to speak his mind about the COVID pandemic issues.
But guess what?
A lot of folks didn't seem to want to let him speak his mind.
Well, we're going to let him talk tonight and in particular about the issue of vaccine safety or lack thereof.
So without further ado, welcome Peter McCullough.
It's great to have you.
Thanks for having me.
All right.
So where to start?
I guess we could go to your December appearance on the roundtable with Senator Ron Johnson, who, by the way, I actually campaigned for here in Wisconsin because of his work on the same issues that you're working on.
And you've called for the COVID vaccines to be withdrawn from the market.
So maybe you can talk about why you made that recommendation.
That recommendation, which is now in U.S.
Senate records and in the National Archives, was the first time a public figure had called in such a proceedings for complete withdrawal from the market.
Now, I was credited with being the first public figure to actually write an op-ed in a Washington Journal to Hill in August of 2020.
Stating my concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine development program was going to be a huge gamble, because it was using novel genetic technology never used before.
It was a genetic code for a lethal protein that resides on the surface of the virus, the spike protein, that we couldn't control it.
And there were going to be some people where the spike protein was going to go out of control and be fatal.
And then not only that, but a shot in the arm Very poor track record for providing any immunity in the nose.
So it didn't look good back in August of 2020.
The trials came out by March 10th of 2021.
I testified in the Texas Senate.
I said, I'm very concerned.
Large numbers of Americans were dying after the vaccine, and it went on from there.
So that call in the U.S.
Senate floor on December 7th, 2022, was basically after two years of observation here, where the pandemic clearly didn't end.
There were no convincing signs that the vaccines were working.
And then large numbers of individuals were dying after taking the vaccine.
Many just after the first few days of taking it.
Our CDC had recorded over 16,000 Americans dying within a few days of taking the vaccine.
And we know that's an underreport.
Those are exact numbers.
We know those people for sure died.
But you know, for a medicinal product, a vaccine, 5, 10, 15, No more than 50 deaths.
It should have been pulled off the market.
Pfizer knew about 1,223 deaths within 90 days of their vaccine worldwide.
And Pfizer didn't voluntarily pull it off.
The FDA wanted to block that information to America for 55 years.
So America is involved in a biopharmaceutical safety disaster right now.
And it looks like our government's trying to cover it up.
So how do we know precisely how many people are dying and suffering from other ill effects?
It seems that the official institutions don't really want to know.
I've discussed this issue with Zoey O'Toole of Children's Health Defense.
She was involved with the book Turtles All The Way Down, which describes how, in the case of other vaccines, it seems that the authorities go out of their way to avoid doing the kinds of studies that could clarify these issues.
And given that the VAERS data that shows, how many deaths does VAERS show now for COVID?
Let me give you the exact number.
When people want to go to VAERS, and by the way, our CDC tells America to go to VAERS.
This is, we take a vaccine, it says right in the FAQ, go to VAERS.
You have to study safety yourself, so every American should be familiar with doing this.
The most understandable is to go to the OpenVers.com forward slash COVID hyphen data, the OpenVers data overlay.
This is kept by a private citizen.
It's a standard query overlay.
It's been fully accepted in U.S.
Senate testimony.
No one's ever challenged it.
So, I'm looking at the overlay right now, and at the top, you can use all VAERS reports, but that would include the UK and parts of Europe.
So, we toggle over to U.S.
and U.S.
territories.
So, these are the domestic numbers.
What we know there, through January 6, 2023, these are certified, where it's been reported and the CDC has confirmed this, 16,315 deaths after taking the vaccine.
We are well over 250,000 hospitalizations, urgent care visits, doctor office visits, 24,000 2,421 cases of anaphylaxis.
That's where patients have a cardiac arrest right in the vaccine center.
6,025 cases of Bell's palsy, paralyzed face.
15,876 permanently disabled Americans now.
4784 cases of myocarditis, pericarditis.
Vaccines trigger heart attacks, so there's 7,333 heart attacks.
This is, I feel like I'm reading a report, a casualty report from a war.
This is worse than a war.
But instead, it's, it's actually, it's the effects of a vaccine.
But how do we know precisely whether it's, you know, how much is underreported and in some cases perhaps overreported, given that technically that the way the system works is that anytime anybody quote-unquote dies after being vaccinated, it's supposed to get reported, but there's no time frame.
And so there's no mandate for the doctors actually to follow up on vaccinated patients and do this.
So the whole system is just obviously designed to really conceal more than to reveal.
So, how do we come to conclusions about whether that number is too high, too low, or what?
Well, let's take the issue of purported over-reporting.
There's never been a peer-reviewed publication or any scientific publication indicating that there's over-reporting in VAERS.
And the reason why that's the case is Because the VAERS report is either done in a paper format, which is rare, or it's done by online entry, which is far more common.
The online entry, and I know because I do this in my practice, it takes multiple screens to get through.
The doctor has to identify him or herself or the paramedic or the coroner or the nurse.
Clinics, phone numbers, the patient has to be identified, the patient's email, the patient's phone number, the patient's lot number, the vaccine card lot numbers, and when the administration was.
And all this information, all this detailed information has to be entered in, and it's under the threat of imprisonment or federal fines if it's falsified.
And we know from a prior paper by Meisner and colleagues in pediatrics in 2016 that 86% of the time, the entries are done by a doctor or a nurse or someone who thinks the vaccine caused the problem.
Now, the issue is if we don't have the vaccine card or we don't have all the details, we can't do the entry.
So it's thought that it's grossly underreported.
And there's been papers published on this.
There's a paper previously by Lazarus and colleagues prior to COVID.
So, excuse me, Dr. McCullough, you're saying that if, if let's say I were the doctor and vaccine somebody and they died very soon thereafter, and I tried to do a VAERS report, but I didn't have access to a vaccine card, then I wouldn't be able, the report would never go through?
Right.
You can't, you don't have to lot number.
You can't go in.
The CDC can't verify the patient actually had the vaccine.
Remember, the VAERS reports go in and they get a temporary VAERS number.
Then the CDC has to vet everything.
The CDC has to verify everything.
Like death, ultimately, there has to be proof that there's death.
When there's a myocarditis, the CDC officers actually call and they verify the blood test results, the troponin results, and other findings.
So, the CDC VAERS process is rigorous.
What's in there is legit.
The vast majority is reported by healthcare workers, people that don't self-report.
The CDC has a separate self-reporting system, and that's called v-safe.
We'll probably get to that later on.
So, the VAERS is to tell us about vaccine safety.
It's an early warning system.
It warned us very early on that something was really wrong with these vaccines.
That people were dying in large number.
And the issue is the drug company and the drug companies and the federal agencies didn't stop it.
Wow.
Yeah.
So, you know, getting to the issue of sort of what, what precisely is this, is the magnitude of the problem?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let me, let me answer that.
Yeah.
Cause you asked the under reporting.
So, um, in several sources, Including FDA testimony, experts have extrapolated.
There's a prior paper by Lazarus and colleagues suggesting, you know, it could be as much as 100-fold underreported.
But people have said for COVID vaccines, which are new and there's death involved, that we don't think the underreporting could be that great.
So, the current expert consensus on this is 30-fold, that there's a 30-fold underreporting.
So, it would be 16,000 times 30.
We're looking at over 450,000 Americans dying of the vaccine, and that fits with the all-cause mortality data that are coming through the Society of Actuaries and other all-cause mortality data insurance companies.
It's about that many Americans, we think, have truly died due to the vaccine.
Okay, and that's a good time to segue to the issue that I emailed you about, which is that analysis of mortality data by Ron Unz where he questions the link between the vaccines and the excess mortality based on, in the U.S., the excess starts in 2020, not 2021.
And then in several European countries, many of the mRNA-vaccinated European countries, we don't really see any excess mortality.
In fact, we see since 2020, actually, there's too little mortality, especially in the working-age populations.
So, looking at this broad array of mortality data, Ron Unz has come to the conclusion Well, let's just take the U.S.
data first.
So right now in the United States, all U.S.
life insurance companies are in 2021 and 2022 are showing an increase in claims.
So what was your response to those articles by Ron?
Well, let's just take the U.S. data first.
So right now in the United States, all U.S. life insurance companies are in 2021 and 2022 are showing an increase in claims.
So loved ones have died and the family members are submitting claims for life insurance payouts and the companies are paying out.
And so the Society of Actuaries issues a report every year.
And the Society of Actuaries is clearly showing an uptick.
So from 2019 to 2020, there was a rise.
And in fact, they know which deaths are coded due to COVID respiratory illness.
And then from 2021 and 2022, it goes up even higher.
In fact, there's an entire book published on this by Edward Dowd, which is a very comprehensive resource.
In Europe, one of the better sources of data is a German health insurance company, which is a private health insurance company, but has a lot of covered lives in Germany, and they have death And the disturbing thing is just like the U.S.
data, they show an increase in death with the introduction of the vaccines, but it's death due to unknown cause.
And I think this is really important.
Prior to COVID-19 pandemic, deaths in general fell into 40% were due to cancer, 40% due to heart disease, and 20% due to other causes.
But the cause of death is almost always known.
This is very important.
So it's heart disease, they've had prior bypass surgery or stents or heart failure and we know about it.
Cancer, the cancer is diagnosed and patients progress and they die of cancer.
It's always, always, always known.
Now the unknown category, the other causes is motor vehicle accidents, suicides.
The point is, there's very few unexplained deaths.
Now we're seeing just a tidal wave of unexplained deaths.
People are previously healthy, And then they're dying.
So there we have to look to autopsies.
And there's two autopsy studies, one by Schwab and colleagues from Heidelberg, Germany, one by Chavez from Columbia, looking at people who've taken the vaccine and they die.
And just asking the question, did they die of the vaccine?
And both studies agree the numbers between 70 and 80% that in fact are dying of a vaccine related problem, a blood clot, Heart damage.
I mean, our FDA agrees that the vaccines cause these problems that the literature shows is fatal.
The heart, thromboembolic and neurologic fatal side effects.
So, I think the chain of logic is there.
People have attempted to argue against it, saying that, you know, in large population data sets that the signal is washed out.
I think the preponderance of evidence suggests we've got a real problem on our hands.
Indeed, yeah.
I think all informed observers agree there's a problem.
You know, the question is sort of the magnitude of the problem.
And, you know, for instance, in the U.S., the vaccine death estimate would range probably from the thousands at the low end among the informed people to up to the half a million figures cited by people like Steve Kirsch at times.
And trying to figure out, you know, precisely what that number would likely be is difficult.
The reason to figure out a number, the only reason to figure out a number is to figure out if we have a drug safety problem and pull the drug off the market.
That number existed on June 22nd of 2021.
And at that point in time, the number of deaths was 182.
And it's too many.
Remember, the vaccine won death.
Is one death too many?
One fatal case of myocarditis or vaccine-induced thomacytopenia is one too many because it's an experimental vaccine.
We couldn't have had any hope that it was going to work, but if it would be safe, it would be worth a try.
But one death is too many.
I mean, we're not talking about vast numbers of people dying and trying to argue, do we see vast numbers of that?
I mean, this is self-administered.
This is self-administered.
This isn't COVID.
COVID is a different issue.
COVID, we are trying to battle it.
We're trying to fight it.
It's like a tsunami or a forest fire.
It's some disaster that we're trying to fight.
COVID is different.
The vaccine is purely self-administered.
What about those who would argue that in the higher age groups, the older folks who do face a bigger threat from COVID, that it's likely that the vaccines, which admittedly are killing some people, are saving far more people than they kill.
And that maybe then if you're an old person or with comorbidities, you might be better off taking it than not taking it.
The only way to make that claim Would be to have a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial show a reduction in death as a primary or secondary endpoint.
And there was large trials done with COVID-19 vaccines, and it didn't show any reductions in death.
None.
And the consent form doesn't indicate that it reduces death.
And believe me, if the FDA thought the vaccines reduced death, boy, that'd be in the consent form in the benefits section.
So any claim That the vaccines reduce death is wishful thinking, and the data don't support it.
It's just the opposite.
The vaccines cause death.
They don't prevent any death with COVID.
And not only that, but we never ask one of our senior citizens to walk to a vaccine center, go in there, and take a risk at death with the injection in order to try to reduce death with the respiratory illness, which we can treat anyway.
That proposition is just an unethical proposition to propose.
Well, I think you're obviously right that there's a real problem with the way that treatments were suppressed in order to make it appear that since there's no treatment for COVID, we can roll out these experimental mRNA vaccines, which if it were admitted that there were, in fact, a treatment, they wouldn't be able to do that.
And so that's an obvious and all too real scandal.
No, I disagree with that.
Remember, the vaccines would have And have the indication to just prevent the illness.
The drugs have the indication to treat the illness.
So even before the vaccines came out, there was an EUA indication for remdesivir to treat the illness.
There was an EUA indication for bemolivumab to treat the illness.
So having treatments is not mutually exclusive to vaccines.
The two should be complementary.
But vaccines, if rolled out, A, should be safe.
B, should be limited to just those who would really need the vaccine.
You pointed out, you know, senior citizens, nursing home patients, people in congregate settings, you know, not young people.
When COVID-19 hit, there was nobody indicating that a six-month-old baby would be a high-risk patient for COVID-19.
But yet, the vaccine program, in its very distorted way, Ultimately extended down to six-month-old babies.
Everyone agrees something's wrong.
And the implication, of course, was that by jabbing your six-month-old baby, you're going to be saving grandma.
However, it seems there was never any evidence that the vaccines significantly slowed transmission.
And so this sort of imaginary supposition that they might slow transmission seems to have been what drove this attempt to vaccinate everybody all the way down to infants, which seems completely crazy, especially when we now are looking at evidences It looks it doesn't wouldn't you say it?
It looks like the these shots if anything may be causing more transmission rather than less by It certainly there's I've seen some data that suggests that and suggests that especially the the more people they get the more they get boosted the more COVID they get Well again go back to the consent form people sign this consent form
The consent form does not say that the vaccines influence transmission at all.
The consent form doesn't say if you take this vaccine that it's going to prevent the baby from giving the illness to grandma.
It doesn't say that at all.
But you know, these consent forms are very important.
They outline what people can expect.
And the consent form says only past tense that the COVID-19 vaccines in the past have been shown to reduce The rates of COVID.
And that was true in the fall of 2020 in the randomized trials.
That's it.
No reductions in hospitalization death, no reduction in severity, no influence on transmission.
And in the EU Parliament, one of the Pfizer executives was asked on this, did they do that?
And they said, no, of course they never tested transmission.
And then this false claim was propagated by so many people that our CDC director had to come out in 2021, in the summer of 2021 and tell America, The vaccines don't stop transmission.
She said that.
And yet still, employers, the military, all these different organizations push the vaccines as if they would stop transmission when our CDC director came out and correctly said they don't stop transmission.
And can you clarify what that means, because this has been a kind of a point of dispute between me and some folks I know, including a few people in the medical field.
So, okay, when you say they don't stop transmission, are you saying that they don't prevent 100% transmission, or are you saying that they don't reduce transmission maybe 5% or something like that, which actually could, you know, bring the row number down below the level where the disease can spread?
In other words, could they slow transmission a little bit?
That's the argument I've been having with people.
You know, it started the papers and, you know, when I go on TV and many people seem to see me on almost all the TV stations.
I think I've done more media interviews than Fauci or just basically anybody in the space.
I always quote the first authors.
You can look it up.
So the first authors are Chow from Ho Chi Minh City and then Acharian Rimerisma, ACORSI, all of these studies showed that a fully vaccinated person gets the virus, you know, the virus grows in the nasopharynx, and then they turn around and spread it to the next person readily who's fully vaccinated.
And then that fully vaccinated person spreads it to another fully vaccinated person.
And so we knew this, Because they were fully vaccinated.
There's a fully vaccinated naval vessel in the British Army, and everyone's fully vaccinated.
And of course, one person spreads it to everybody else, and it spreads through.
There were fully vaccinated cruise boats, fully vaccinated weddings.
This was so embarrassing for those who are promoting the vaccines.
The vaccines basically just didn't work.
So what I mean by that, it's not like things would be better Uh, if one is vaccinated or not vaccinated.
It was it was basically about the same.
The vaccines had no impact.
You couldn't tell any difference between a vaccinated person and unvaccinated.
Yeah, that's what most of the evidence I saw seemed to indicate, too.
But theoretically, you know, you could say that you could do an experiment where you sent out a cruise ship with 500 vaccinated people and 500 unvaccinated people and sort of measured how long it took them to catch COVID and stuff like that.
But in any case, there's a couple of studies.
There was one in New England Journal of Medicine from University of California at San Diego.
So they looked at a health system population and there was more spreading of COVID In the vaccinated health care workers than the unvaccinated health care workers.
There's a recent one by Shreffa and colleagues in Cleveland Clinic, the same thing.
The more shots they took, the more COVID they had in their population.
So part of this is because the unvaccinated are typically unvaccinated for a reason.
They're younger, stronger, healthier.
They've already had COVID.
They can take care of themselves better.
They're just in better shape.
Wait a minute, that's the opposite of the healthy vaccinee syndrome that gets talked about.
No, no.
I mean, the unvaccinated in every analysis look very good.
You know, in the Office of National Statistics for the UK, the unvaccinated, even when they get COVID, they have much lower rates of hospitalization and death than the vaccinated.
So part of this is confounding.
You know, vaccines were really promoted in the elderly and those weaker and frail.
Part of this is probably the biology.
We have papers now, one by Wheatley in 2021, indicating the more vaccines that people take, the more the immune system is misdirected because the vaccines are outdated.
The vaccines expose the body to extinct forms of the spike protein.
So, because, so they're not relative, they're not relevant to what's going on today.
The body is misdirected against an ancestral spike protein.
And so when the next variant comes, the body is open for attack.
Whereas in natural immunity, the body develops a library against, you know, at least 15 different viral proteins and has full cellular and natural killer cell immunity.
The vaccine immunity really isn't providing any protection in the nose and the mouth.
That's where the virus is acquired.
It's actually a shot in the arm.
Well, that antigenic original sin issue where the jab supposedly does well, I guess it happens if you just catch the disease naturally too, but it looks like it might be worse with the vaccines, that the immune system generates antibodies to go after that original legacy spike protein, and it's always going to be biased towards that.
It's never going to be as good.
At going after these new mutations, which might explain why it is that these studies are showing that the more jabs people have, the more COVID they catch.
Yeah, you can look at it this way.
If the vaccine worked, the pandemic should have been over with by now.
I mean, the CDC says 83% of Americans took the vaccine.
We shouldn't have had any COVID in 2022.
None.
I mean, it should have been over with.
Instead, it was just the opposite.
When the Omicron spike hit in December 10th, 2021, that the CDC put out in the MMWR, they said 79% of patients with Omicron are fully vaccinated.
So it's obvious the vaccines don't work when the vast majority of new cases are fully vaccinated.
And they seem to, well, what do you make of the claims that you see from people like Alex Berenson, who cites studies seemingly showing that the vaccines actually do work in terms of preventing or reducing the chances of severe COVID hospitalization and presumably death.
But that is a temporary effect.
According to the stuff I've seen cited by Berenson, several of these studies seem to show that in the first month after vaccination, people are actually a little bit worse off from the second to about the sixth month after the initial vaccination there, They're significantly better off, according to what he showed anyway.
And then it quickly goes off the cliff, and pretty soon they're as bad or worse than if they'd never been vaccinated.
Then they get boosted, and they get a couple months of benefit before it wears off even faster.
And each booster wears off even faster and leaves them in worse shape than if they'd never been vaxxed at all.
is, They're not randomized.
sound correct?
And if so, how does the fact, you know, according to these studies showing about maybe five months of robust protection from the initial jab, did you agree that that protection exists?
And if not, what's wrong with those studies?
Yeah, what's wrong with the studies, they're not randomized.
So any claims on efficacy must be randomized.
And randomization handles selection bias, that is, you know, who's going to go forward and take a vaccine or not, and also handles known and unknown confounders, or that's maldistribution of other factors.
So, any claims on efficacy, we just, we have to stick to randomized trial data.
Now, safety is different, because safety, you know, we look at it in all different ways, and we prioritize safety over efficacy.
We always mention safety before efficacy.
It's very important.
If a product is not safe, it doesn't matter what it's doing.
It's like a car.
It doesn't matter how fast and shiny a car is.
If it's not safe, the car's going to blow up.
There's no reason to talk about the car.
And the same thing with vaccines.
If they're not safe, there's no reason to wade through You know, non-randomized observational data, you know, on efficacy.
Wait, wait, wait.
Dr. McCullough, I had a couple of hip replacements back in 2012, 2013, and I'm back to hanging in there now with my mid-20s son playing 101 basketball, and so I underwent hip replacements, which required total anesthesia, which was a significant risk.
There's also a significant risk I did get a quote-unquote life-threatening staph infection after one of the hip surgeries.
So when I chose to undergo those hip surgeries in hopes of being able to play basketball again, and thank God that worked out, I did knowingly take a certain risk of dying, whether from the anesthesia or from the staph or whatever.
So, isn't it true that in many medical procedures people do take risks and that hip replacement surgeries do kill people?
Let's talk about that.
If there were 16,000 recorded deaths after hip surgery in the United States, there wouldn't be a single hip surgery done in this country.
Not a one.
If there were 1,600 deaths after hip surgery, there wouldn't be a single one.
Wouldn't it be better expressed as a percentage of surgeries though?
Because like with the vaccine, it's what, two, three quarters of the country got that?
No, no.
On safety data, we use crude data.
It's very important.
Not percentages, crude data.
On safety, our tolerances for loss of human life are counted on one hand and two hands.
and 15 and 12 and 60.
And around that point, we always use cuckoo data.
We don't divide it because some things could be done in large numbers and we would end up with large numbers of dead Americans as a safety side effect if we're used to a percentage.
So safety is always handled in crude data.
It's very important.
But getting back to Berenson, Berenson not being a doctor doesn't understand the importance of randomized trials for efficacy claims.
So FSC claims have to stay within the realm of randomized trials The randomized trials showed, with the original Wuhan strain, that there was a reduction in new cases of COVID, no reductions in hospitalization and death.
And the original randomized trials showed unacceptable safety.
And this was published by Freeman and colleagues, which showed that even the original randomized trials, it wasn't worth it to try to reduce the risk of getting what's essentially a cold People are having cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, that just wasn't worth it from the very beginning.
And so, no, we just we simply can't accept unsafe products.
If we sold, if we sold 60 million pickup trucks in the United States, let's say Ford F-150s, 60 million.
And there were a thousand that blew up and people burned up in the pickup truck.
It would be considered unsafe.
If there were 10 that blew up in that pickup truck, it would be recalled.
You see, you see our tolerance for safety is never, we don't say, oh, it's 60 million.
You know, there was a thousand that blew up.
We'll just divide it by 60 million.
It's pretty low chance.
We never divide safety by a big number and try to minimize it.
But wouldn't that be a different calculation from pickup trucks if the product that you're selling is supposedly saving way more lives than it's taking?
Well, then people would have to walk in and say, listen, large numbers of people are dying with the shot and large numbers of people are dying with the infection.
So you have to make a choice.
And I think in that scenario, What people would say is, listen, I'll take my chance of the infection and I'll take some medication.
You know, I mean, people make their choice.
If you say, you know, a large number of people are dying with a pickup truck, you may say, you know what, I'm not going to get a pickup truck.
The point is, if the proposal is to have large numbers of deaths by walking into a vaccine center, taking a vaccine, there must be a choice.
That's the point.
Absolutely.
And that's one of the most horrific things about this whole historical episode, is the way that there's been so much coercion to get people to take these experimental injections.
And regardless of precisely how we would quantitatively estimate the safety and the efficacy, forcing people to do this, especially with a product that doesn't have any effect on transmission, except maybe a bad one after a while, It's just insane.
What do you think is the motivation that's led the establishment to be so fanatical about pushing this product on everybody up to and including these little kids that are at zero risk really from COVID and probably a lot more risk from the vaccines?
Well, I can tell you Albert Borla was seen on the streets of Davos Switzerland and he was asked that question point-blank.
He stonewalled him.
Yeah.
You know, you've never asked a person who actually can give you the answer because obviously, you know, it's a person's opinion on this and get an answer.
It's just impossible to know what the motivation of someone who would promote the vaccines.
I've never had a doctor come up to me And tell me the motivation for promoting the vaccine.
And believe me, I walk into a major medical center every day.
People know me.
I'm widely available on email and cell phone and text.
Not a single doctor.
Yeah, it's very strange.
It seems like a kind of a manufactured propaganda bubble that rode a wave of hysteria.
I suppose, you know, we could analyze the crowd dynamics of the hysterical crowd in various ways, but
Ultimately, I suspect that there may have been some orchestration behind it, and I'm going to throw out some speculation, which I don't necessarily expect you to accept or reject, but just to think about, is it strikes me as there's a likelihood that there's a strong military element to the entire COVID experience that we've just gone through.
Will Jones of the Daily Skeptic has just picked up on the hypothesis that I was talking about probably in February of 2020, and then Ron Unz picked it up and ran with it and produced a really good book about it, which is, of course, the evidence, which I think is quite strong, that COVID emerged from a biological attack on China and Iran.
And if that's the case, one could speculate that these mRNA vaccines, which can theoretically one day be produced very quickly to mix and match against whatever new variant or new bioweapon is used, whichever side had the advantage in the mRNA technology would have a strong advantage in a future biological warfare scenario.
So they wanted to run an experiment And they were hoping that these mRNA vaccines would work well, and they wanted to have this huge experiment where they could fine-tune them for future biological warfare projects.
Now, that's, of course, a very controversial thesis.
But I was wondering if you've actually taken a look at that evidence for COVID coming out of a bioattack.
And the strongest evidence, of course, is that Defense Intelligence Agency memo in November of 2019 that was warning of a terrible pandemic brewing in Wuhan at a time that the Chinese government couldn't possibly have known there was anything wrong, that they obviously didn't know that there was anything wrong.
But apparently some element of the U.S.
government did know that somebody had seeded Wuhan, China with COVID.
And then, of course, it miraculously next went to clone Iran and killed off a bunch of the leading lights of the Islamic Republic.
So in any case, have you looked into that stuff?
And if so, what's your take?
Yeah, I've spent some time on the government website.
So, I mean, that's pretty fair.
And you just go on the website right now that the military Research unit of interest is called DARPA.
D-A-R-P-A.
It's on the website today.
DARPA has a program.
It's called the ADEPT P3 program.
Pandemic Protect Prevention Program.
And it states in 2012, they started a program to use messenger RNA to develop vaccines.
And their goal was to end pandemic in 60 days.
That's in 2012.
It's on their website.
When the U.S.
COVID-19 vaccines were introduced December 10, 2020, the document that introduces it is introduced by the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
It's not introduced by the CDC or the FDA or the NIH.
It's a military operation.
In fact, the PrEP Act The pandemic preparedness, that's in 2005.
And it uses the term countermeasures and biological threats.
These are military terms.
The best way to think about it is that this is a national security program.
It's not a public health program.
The emergency use authorization mechanism for the vaccine, that's a military mechanism.
Previously, before this, it was exclusively used for the military.
The vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax, they're, in a sense, marketing shields.
The vaccines are actually physically made by defense contractors.
So, for instance, Moderna is made by resilience, a defense contractor.
And so, it's important that people understand that this whole program has a military origin to it.
Now, The military, DARPA for instance, if you go on their website, and the PrEP Act, which is strongly related to the PrEP Act, will tell you what it covers.
There's a series of programs.
There's a SARS-CoV-2 program, there's a smallpox monkeypox program, Ebola, anthrax.
There are these programs.
These are government programs.
So they have, they work on a threat A biological threat, let's say anthrax, and then they work on an answer to it, which is vaccines or other treatments for the SARS-CoV-2 program, which is clearly on the government websites.
They have a program.
They're developing and working on SARS-CoV-2 and then working on monoclonal antibodies and vaccines as the answer.
It's funded by the U.S.
government, DARPA, the military, BARDA for the NIH, the lead Research Group is led by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Ralph Baric is the senior author.
He's been publishing on coronaviruses since 1992, so he's the most knowledgeable person in the country on coronaviruses.
You'd think he'd be leading, you know, government efforts on this, but he's been publishing since 1992.
In 2015, remember, DARPA announces they're using messenger RNA in 2012.
In 2015, Barrick, his group, publishes in Nature Communications and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two important papers.
It says SARS-CoV-2, you know, poised for emergence in human populations.
So their research was tweaking the virus to make it more invasive and more lethal.
They got it to invade a human respiratory epithelial tract in an animal.
And they were working on monoclonal antibodies and vaccines at the same time, at that time killed vaccines.
But these are in peer-reviewed publications and actually very widely read journals.
So the medical community knew this, that this was being developed.
This is 2015, summarizing work from 2012 to 2015.
And now the work was gain-of-function research.
And by the laws in the United States, it had to be outsourced to Wuhan, China.
So the first paper, They thank the Chinese.
The Chinese are not authors.
The Chinese are like a contract lab.
So it's U.S.
work to make the virus more lethal and evasive, and to do this in animals.
And they thank the Chinese for using their lab.
And then the second paper, they include three Chinese authors, including the lady now is called the Bat Lady.
But this is, you know, this is in the National Library of Medicine.
This is published on the journal's websites.
It's widely known.
So... Hidden in plain sight.
So it's right there.
So you don't have to invoke, you don't have to invoke Iran or anything else.
It just, Iran's not on the papers.
It's done.
It's U.S.
research done in the biosecurity level for annex to the Wuhan lab.
Now, the BSL-4 annex to Wuhan lab, that was built a few years earlier with a contract with a French company, BioMérieux.
BioMérieux, it was commissioned by Jacques Chirac at the time.
to help the Chinese build the biosecurity lab.
Now, the CEO of Biomareu was billionaire Stephan Bainzel.
So Bainzel knew the Chinese lab well because he built it.
So Bainzel in 2011 goes from Biomareu to Moderna, and Moderna starts getting its first flows of money the next year from DARPA.
So that's how this happened.
That's how this happened.
So without any doubt, SARS-CoV-2 was made more infectious and more lethal in the Wuhan Biosecurity Lab that Beng Xiao built before he went to Moderna.
Moderna is clearly involved in it, and Moderna has the patent first on the vaccine, and then Pfizer tries to copy it later on, and that's the reason why Moderna is suing Pfizer.
So all of this is in the open.
So the virus was being developed, The vaccines were being developed and all this was messaged to America through pandemic preparedness planning events.
Now there's 36 of them since 2012.
25 of them provide written documents, like I'm summarizing to you right now.
And then six of them are filmed.
You can just go watch them.
So for instance there's a 2017 Georgetown conference and the Georgetown conference features Anthony Fauci.
It features White House coordinator Ashish Jha.
And they said there will be a coronavirus pandemic.
And when it happens, we're going to have emergency responses and public health activation.
And we are going to have a mass vaccination campaign.
Event 201 happened in the fall of 2019.
Again, it's filmed.
You can go watch it.
In that case, they are so ready for this that they bring over The head of the Chinese CDC, the Chinese doctor, Dr. Gao, he comes over and he participates in this planning event.
Now, whether these planning events are simply preparedness events, like getting ready for something bad in case it happens, or whether they're planning events for it's going to happen is unclear.
So what's really unclear is just the intentionality of this.
That's really what's unclear.
And that's what people are trying to work out.
If you ask me, Based on everything I know, I think it was unintentional that it came out of this lab.
To me, and I look back to the Johns Hopkins planning event, which provides a written document you can read, where they called it the SPARS pandemic.
They said there was going to be a coronavirus pandemic, but it was going to be in 2025.
And to me, it looks like it just got out of the lab a bit early.
And that's the reason why it was herky-jerky, that there was a lot of confusion.
Heads rolled in Wuhan, China.
It killed Chinese.
Things just weren't ready.
I mean, if this was an exercise to test protecting the public from a vaccine, why didn't they wait until the vaccines were really ready?
You see what I mean?
So to me, it looks like a lab accident.
Okay, well of course there was the military crimson contagion exercise, but then there is that seeming smoking gun DIA document from November of 2019 when nobody could possibly have known that there were a handful of dozen cases in Wuhan that were almost all looking just like mild flu, yet the DIA warned all of its European allies and indeed the Israelis, and it was later confirmed by Israeli sources, I mean, I don't know.
I don't know.
was brewing in Wuhan.
So that suggests that somebody was trying to cover their rear end.
And I would question, like the way you've described this, the purpose of creating these gain-of-function weaponized viruses would be mainly kind of just to make money and to, you know, it's...
No, I think they're military assets.
Right.
So why wouldn't this have been used against China, given that, according to U.S. National Security Strategy, under the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the U.S. has to do absolutely everything to prevent the emergence of even a regional hegemon anywhere in the world.
And the one that's emerging, of course, is China.
And since 2012 or so, people like Mersheimer and other foreign policy realists have said the US is going to have to do whatever it can possibly do to slow Chinese economic growth, even if it has to torpedo global economic growth to do it.
And so Robert Kadlec, the man who made his name by advocating the use of biological weapons to damage enemy economies, was appointed as the germ warfare czar by Donald Trump.
And the next thing you know, the Chinese are experiencing Chicken flu in 2018, and then pork flu in 2019, and then a weaponized human flu in 2020 that breaks out at the worst possible time and place for China, right in time for the Chinese New Year when the entire country is traveling through Wuhan, and then it miraculously jumps to calm Iran and kills off a significant segment of the Iranian leadership.
To me, it's just obvious that that hypothesis that, yes, it's a military weapon, and it was used as a military weapon, is by far the most likely explanation of where it came from.
Boy, if it was used as a military weapon, this has got to be the biggest military blunder of all time.
To wipe out this many Americans and Europeans.
Yeah, no, I don't buy it.
I think if it's a military weapon, you know, to me, honestly, now we're talking about villain Thriller movies, you know, it's released on a subway somewhere.
It just wouldn't be Wuhan, China.
That whole theory, I don't think, to me, doesn't hold water.
Read the geopolitics.
Yeah, but you wouldn't – it just wouldn't be Wuhan, China.
It would be – it just doesn't – that whole theory, I don't think, to me, doesn't hold water.
To me, it looks like it's this uncoordinated, messy situation where it could be just as bad as some Ebola outbreak out of one of these labs or just with Marbrook.
or whatever the one, the PREP Act on the U.S. Constitutional government website lists our portfolio of threats.
And Lyme, too, apparently.
Lyme, apparently, either escaped from a U.S.
government lab or something like it.
But it's clear at this point in time, though, that our government does not have our best interests At hand.
And when people are being forced to take a vaccine and then they're dying afterwards, I don't think there can be anything worse.
I mean, honestly, outside of just a direct attack, outside of a firing squad, what would be equivalent to that?
You know what I mean?
Well, the gain of function plus the vaccine seems like a real one-two punch.
It's true.
The first wave of threat to the United States was SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, and now in 2021 and 2022, we have not only the illness, but we have the vaccines.
Let me just read to you, this is on the government website, this is for the PrEP Act, the PrEP Act declarations.
This is what the U.S.
has in terms of its portfolio of threats, meaning They have sufficiently thought about this, that they've developed it, and they actually have countermeasures.
There's actually government countermeasures just like these vaccines or other activities.
They have smallpox, monkeypox, and other orthopoxies, Marburg virus and Marburg disease, Ebola, nerve agents and insecticides, Zika virus, pandemic influenza, anthrax, acute radiation syndrome, and botulinum.
We have actually official ones and then obviously SARS-CoV-2, but we have these programs and people need to understand if there was, you know, there is a anthrax medical countermeasures amended January 1st, 2023.
This is just a few weeks old and our Secretary of Health and Human Services is issued in the Federal Register an update to this in the Public Health Service Act.
And it starts to name exactly what's going to happen if we have an anthrax problem.
So our government is working on this, and it's all available on the website.
Yeah, the history of biological weapons and the U.S.
involvement in it is really quite amazing.
I don't know if you've seen Nicholson Baker's book, Baseless, but it sure looks like the U.S.
has done relatively small, deniable germ warfare attacks quite a few times since Korea.
And then there's Kenneth King's book, Germs Gone Wild.
That describes how after the anthrax attacks after 9-11, which were of course an inside job as our own government admits, that they increased the budget by something like a thousand percent and built a bunch more level 4 labs.
It's completely crazy.
So, maybe everybody should be able to agree that we need to get this biowar research under control.
I mean, that should be the real lesson of COVID, shouldn't it?
Well, that should be the end lesson.
Right now, we have to save lives.
The biggest threat to people's lives is the vaccine.
I think there's a very important paper published in New England Journal of Medicine in October of 2022, and the first author is Chen.
And it's from the U.S.
prison system.
It's very important, U.S.
prison system.
59,000 prisoners, 17,000 deaths.
One of the biggest studies actually in COVID that exists, all congregate settings, and they know every case.
They know every single case of COVID.
And what came out of the Chen study is that if someone's had COVID through the Delta outbreak, which was one of the bigger, longer outbreaks, And they got COVID a second time, which would be Omicron.
There were zero deaths, zero hospitalizations, zero.
It didn't matter if you had a vaccine or not.
Unvaccinated did fine too, if they've had a prior infection.
Now the question is, who in the United States has had a prior infection?
Harvard studied recently.
Answer, 94% of Americans.
94% of Americans are completely covered on this.
There is not going to be a risk if they get COVID a second time.
So how do we focus on the vulnerable people?
Well, the vulnerable people need our support.
It's a very easily treatable illness if they need treatment.
But I get calls all day long from COVID patients.
I'm not worried about people being hospitalized or dying at this point in time.
No doctor is.
We have patients in the hospital who are COVID positive.
but they don't have adjudicated COVID.
They're coming in for their hip surgery.
Remember someone who has COVID, they stay positive for months afterwards.
That's not acute COVID.
So we're actually in really good shape as a country.
People are at restaurants and they're packed and flying on planes and people are not worried about COVID.
We don't have a public health emergency, a national emergency.
I wish the show were going on longer, because there's more things I'd love to ask you.
I know.
I have to go on TV.
Well, I appreciate all of the work you do.
You're really out there putting yourself on the line and working so hard to get your perspective out there.
So keep up the great work, Dr. Peter McCullough, and hope to talk to you again.
Okay, thanks for your time.
▲
Export Selection