Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 24, 2021 - RFK Jr. The Defender

27:09

What Fauci Should Have Done with Dr Peter McCullough

Dr. Peter McCullough and RFK Jr discuss what Dr. Anthony Fauci should have done in this episode, as well as shocking new studies....

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, I have one of my heroes on today, Dr.
	Peter McCulloch, and I want to ask you, you had an article that ran in The Defender yesterday, and it was an article about the Chalice Study, which was published, it was a preprint published in the Lancet on, I think it was on August 10th.
	Can you tell us about, you know, what the implications are of that study?
	Well, as we are really in the midst of this Delta outbreak, which is occurring worldwide, particularly in countries that have higher proportions of the population vaccinated, we are asking the question, how in the world can we have so many vaccinated individuals but yet had such a prominent outbreak of the Delta variant among vaccinated and unvaccinated?
	And this paper from Chow, from a unit of the Oxford Division of Public Health that's in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, has demonstrated that during a lockdown, so in June, they had an outbreak and they locked down the hospital where the workers could not get out of the hospital.
	And then they were assiduously checking the workers and testing them for SARS-CoV-2, as well as doing sequencing.
	They indeed found workers that were contracting COVID-19 within the lockdown period, a total of 69.
	They ascertained that from not only the Delta variant, but additional mutations, in a sense, the fingerprint of the exact strains that the workers were passing it to one another.
	And then the big finding was their calculation of viral load.
	And this group had actually calculated viral load from oral and nasal secretions in the past.
	The viral load was 251 times that of the previous unvaccinated era, where they had used the So they had previous workers and patients who had had COVID-19 before any exposure to the vaccines and now the vaccinated were carrying a massive viral load and in fact passing it to one another.
	So the The mystery is that vaccinated individuals are carrying a higher viral load.
	Is it Delta variant or all variants?
	In this paper, it was the Delta variant, but we had an idea this was going on.
	There was some prior...
	Experts, vaccine experts, immunologists that had suggested this because we knew originally that the vaccines were non-sterilizing.
	That is, the vaccines could not get the immune system to completely eradicate the virus early in the early studies.
	And so the fear was that we're going to create, in a sense, super spreaders.
	And what we found was the vaccine is actually clearing the way so that they can walk around asymptomatic and that they can have these huge viral loads in their nasal pharynx that they are blasting out to the community, to patients, to anybody that they meet.
	Well, you know, I'm not sure they're asymptomatic.
	In that paper, they used the word pre-symptomatic since they did evolve symptoms.
	So it's just that they were doing very assiduous testing.
	So, you know, I don't think we should start really going after the vaccinated with asymptomatic testing, but the message here is...
	Is the vaccinated clearly are susceptible to COVID-19 and the Delta variant.
	The vaccines in this case, in this example, it was the AstraZeneca adenoviral vaccine, but we know separately from Israel that exclusively uses the Pfizer vaccine that the Israeli health minister now has the Pfizer vaccine down to 17% vaccine efficacy.
	The Mayo Clinic has Pfizer using Rochester, Minnesota inhabitants vaccinated with Pfizer They have Pfizer down to 42% efficacy.
	And these levels are far below the 50% regulatory standard to even have a vaccine on the market.
	So it's clear that whether it's Delta, whether it's AstraZeneca or Pfizer in these working examples, the vaccines are failing.
	Now, I want to point out one other really shocking data point that came out this week.
	You and I talked about earlier that the six-month Pfizer clinical trial study has just come out, and it shows that there is no All cause mortality benefit from the vaccine.
	In other words, the people in the placebo group, there were, I think, 20 deaths in the vaccine group and only 14 deaths in the placebo group.
	And what the study showed is that the vaccine actually prevents people, small numbers of people, from dying from COVID. But for every person that does not die from COVID because of the vaccine, Three extra people are dying from heart attacks.
	So there's actually a negative mortality benefit from the vaccine.
	And, you know, between that study and the Chow study, it doesn't seem to make any sense that we just, that the FDA yesterday, just approved the vaccine for licensing, and it didn't have any public process.
	It didn't bring in The VRPAC committee to consult, which is unprecedented.
	There's no scientific oversight.
	They just hammered this through in order to allow the mandates.
	I guess to unpack that, there's actually a lot to unpack.
	Even the six-month data are, in a sense, an extension of a previous era of COVID-19.
	So during the time of the randomized trials, we had a blend of variants.
	And the dominant variant that we had, it wasn't dominant, but it was always 20 or 30 percent We're good to go.
	And since it's such a tight, tight timeframe, the idea that myocardial infarction that may have actually been related to the prothrombotic effect of the vaccine is very feasible that it would actually negate it under those circumstances.
	Now, in the 13-page document that's available publicly on the FDA website now, I've had a chance to review it.
	It's far from a full approval.
	It's based on the prior data only.
	It's looking at vaccine efficacy over 90% from the original registrational trials, which were very short with the older strains.
	There's no contemporary data with Delta.
	And throughout the entire letter, it mentions emergency use authorization, including the final paragraph.
	It looks like an extension of the emergency use authorization.
	There's no proposed package label or product insert.
	There's no important safety information, and there's no briefing booklet.
	So it's far from a standard of what's available today that anybody would look at for full approval.
	It looks like an extension of the EUA that's publicly available today.
	I know it's the first day of release, but we'll have a careful look at the package insert.
	And if it doesn't have contemporary data, With respect to the Delta variant, which is now nearly 100% in the United States, it may be immediately obsolete.
	I'll just explain this to the audience.
	Basically, you have a vaccine that may have been effective in the beginning.
	It may have been 90% effective, according to what they're saying, although there's problems with those numbers as well.
	But today, with the Delta variant, it is less than 50% at best.
	And normally you cannot get a vaccine approval if it's less than 50% effective.
	Is that what you're saying?
	Yeah, there's two standards.
	One is this idea of it must be at least have 50% vaccine efficacy, or in a sense that's interpreted as kind of a theoretical 50% protection.
	And then another reasonable standard is that it ought at least last a year in terms of having a durability of a year.
	A lot of our Vaccines last, you know, 10 years like a tetanus booster or, you know, many years, 5, 10 or more years for hepatitis B. But to have a vaccine that already there is a call for boosters, in fact, they're being done right now at six months of duration, eight months of duration, and the boosters are not adjusted for the variants.
	So we know that Delta is considerably mutated spike protein, and that's the only thing We're good to go.
	That's produced by human cells after the vaccine is injected.
	There's antigenic escape.
	So it doesn't matter how many boosters one give, if it's missing the target, it's going to be futile.
	And in fact, ever since the booster program has been started, which is just a few weeks ago in Israel, there's already failures among those who've received a third shot.
	Yeah, you know, I... Recall that there was, during the last year before COVID, there were a number of studies that came out on the measles vaccine.
	And those studies show that you get some benefit from the second booster, but essentially zero benefit from the third booster.
	So even with measles, which is pretty stable, In terms of the mutation rate, the third booster provides almost no additional efficacy.
	And here they're basically giving you a booster that is obsolete.
	It's nine months old.
	It doesn't even address the microbe that you're trying to kill.
	I think the hope is to try to overwhelm it with very high levels of antibodies.
	And we know that with the vaccines, the titers...
	Of the antibodies with the vaccine are far higher than that with the natural immunity, but those are antibodies directed against the spike protein.
	With the natural immunity, we have a full library of IgA since the respiratory illness starts in the nose and the mouth.
	Then we have libraries of IgG against not only the spike protein in the natural infection, but also the nucleocapsid and many other antigens.
	So we may have hundreds, if not thousands, of antibodies in full T cell helper, T killer cell.
	And presenter cell immunity.
	So the natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable.
	And the vaccine immunity is, in a sense, an overshoot on a very narrow library of antibodies directed against the spike protein.
	And so what's happening is this antigenic escape and trying to keep boosting the antibodies.
	In a recent paper from Israel, where the first author is named Dr.
	Israel, in that paper, they showed that month by month, the antibodies after the vaccination Drop by 40%.
	So they're very high, but they drop, drop, drop, drop.
	And then by six months, the natural immunity antibodies, which is only part of the great immunity of natural immunity, exceeds that of the vaccine immunity.
	So one of the things that's not supportable is any claim that vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity.
	It's just the opposite.
	Natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable.
	And to my knowledge, there's never been a bona fide second case of COVID-19.
	When I mean second case, I mean somebody's sick with the characteristic signs and symptoms and proven PCR antigen and sequencing to actually prove that they have a second infection.
	It's never been reported, to my knowledge.
	You and I talked last night, I was asking you, if you were in Tony Fauci's position, what would you have done differently at the beginning of this pandemic?
	What should we have done?
	I'm clearly not involved at all in terms of giving advice on the pandemic response, but if I was, if I was in that position, I would have immediately had teams of doctors assembled with a focus on sick individuals and doctors who had ideas and started to get early experience on treated patients with COVID-19.
	And you can work in groups of four, six, and eight doctors that should have been meeting around the clock Finding out the best ways to treat Americans.
	And we should have focused on one endpoint, and that's the composite of hospitalization and death.
	The goal would have been to reduce hospitalizations and death and make this a manageable problem at home.
	And then worry about everything else after that, but handle the sick individuals.
	I would have had international collaboration and would have had very frequent updates because this pandemic was moving around the world and still is.
	To take best practices.
	What's working in other countries?
	How are they treating COVID-19 in other countries?
	And constantly have international updates.
	This would have been very critical.
	We should have had a budget to invest in large-scale, outpatient, short clinical trials with the goal of reducing hospitalization and death.
	This would have been extraordinarily helpful.
	It would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States, millions of lives outside of the United States.
	And I think those clinical trials relatively quickly would have arrived on the fact that single drugs weren't going to work, that we needed drugs to be used in combination to reduce viral replication, cytokine storm, and thrombosis.
	So it would have been early treatment, early treatment, early treatment, and that would have kept the hospitals unloaded.
	We would have had the investment that we had in hospitalized care, but it would have been in a continuum with outpatient care.
	So all these big medical centers that were fielding these admissions to the hospital should have had treatment clinics.
	And treatment centers.
	It could have been outside field tents.
	They could have done this in order to really kind of meter out how many hospitalizations would have been happening.
	So focus on early treatment, having enough resources in the hospital, then I would have worried about everything else.
	This idea of how does the virus spread and hand sanitizers and masks, that can all be secondary to just handling the sick people And then having a vaccine strategy could have been considered and could have been thought out, but it should have been done, in my view, in a much more careful manner.
	It clearly should have used established and safe vaccine technologies and not, out of the box, use a brand new mechanism of action to try to put mass vaccination in the population.
	Well, what are you seeing?
	I know you just came from your hospital moments ago.
	What are you seeing now in the hospital in terms of vaccine injury and COVID injury and death?
	Well, let's take COVID as we see it now.
	So clearly the Delta variant is predominant.
	The Delta variant is said to be less fatal and less virulent according to the UK variant report.
	I think the August 6th, the 20th version, still has the mortality overall for Delta far less than 1%.
	So it's actually fourfold less than the Alpha variant or the UK variant in their data.
	But these are people who are sick enough to go to the hospital in the UK and My clinical experience, and I have dozens of patients right now.
	I've been on the scramble with this.
	My clinical experience at Delta may be somewhat easier to treat as an outpatient, but I have to tell you, when patients are hospitalized, I have a great respect for this infection that, in fact, I've had fatalities in younger individuals, which is really alarming.
	Each and every fatality and each and every hospitalization that I'm aware of has not received adequate early treatment.
	There's enormous frustration here.
	We have emergency use authorized monoclonal antibodies.
	The featured one is by Regeneron.
	We have 500,000 pre-purchased doses and our agencies and our major medical centers are not telling the public Where these antibodies are, how they can access them, who qualifies, how can someone get a course of monoclonal antibodies?
	It's an enormous frustration.
	I've had patients go to emergency room and then they're told, well, no, you're not sick enough to get the monoclonal antibodies.
	Go home.
	I've had another one, unfortunately, who passed away where I wanted to get the monoclonal antibodies and then they admitted them.
	And they said, well, now technically you're admitted to the hospital.
	You can't receive the monoclonal antibodies.
	So there's all these technicalities.
	Everything's working to prevent high quality treatment given to patients sick with COVID-19.
	And what about vaccine injuries and deaths?
	Are you seeing any of those?
	Well, the vaccine adverse event reporting system is only source right now.
	Our US FDA and the CDC, which are the joint sponsors of the public vaccine program, which is an investigation, you know, they have no critical event committee.
	They have no data safety monitoring board.
	They have no human ethics board.
	This is an abrogation of standards of safety for participants in human clinical investigation.
	It's the only time that I'm aware of that we haven't seen the Office of Human Research Protection's OHRP step in on this.
	We should have had a data safety monitoring board with the size of this program doing monthly reviews of safety and giving advice to the program on whether or not it should continue or whether there should be modifications in the program.
	There was no data safety monitoring board involved.
	And looking backwards, we had a mortality signal with this program at 27 million Americans vaccinated on January 22nd.
	The mortality was 186 patients and that would exceed a confidence above a usual expected for the entire class of injections at 150 deaths.
	So at January 22nd, if we would have had a day safety monitoring board review the data, the DSMB would have shut this down in February, and they would have had to look at the deaths and say, where are they happening?
	Are they happening in COVID recovered patients who shouldn't be receiving the vaccine?
	Are they happening in the frail elderly?
	They would have asked some questions.
	And shockingly, We're in August, and our vaccine program sponsors, the FDA and the CDC, have yet to have a single press briefing or a single report on comprehensive safety.
	All we have is the self-queried VAERS report, and the VAERS report takes temporary VAERS cases, and then when they're ascertained as being permanent VAERS numbers, that means the CDC has verified the event happens, it goes into the database and comes up on a weekly open frame Open data source that anybody can click called Open VAERS and we are at now 13,000 deaths that the CDC has told us has happened.
	Over 200,000 emergency room visits, clinic visits, and we have separate external analysis.
	We shouldn't have to rely on this, but we have them because there's such a great need to understand by McLaughlin and colleagues from London that have shown that 50% of these deaths occur within two days of getting the vaccine.
	80% occur within a week.
	Most are seniors in their 70s or 80s who die, and 86% of the time, there's no other explanation.
	Someone healthy enough to walk into a vaccine center Separately, we know that from an extrapolation from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, which they do know who's been vaccinated and they do know when someone has died, has corroborated this and in fact has extended the estimate that the numbers who have died are probably closer to 45,000 after a vaccine.
	I told you about 186 who should have been our tolerance for this, for the whole program, for the whole year.
	So this is off the rails in terms of mortality, absolutely off the rails.
	And I just had a patient in my practice.
	I'll give you the vignette.
	She received the vaccine in May.
	Two weeks later, she was admitted for a diffuse, really dangerous prothrombotic syndrome where she had micro blood clots in both her arteries and legs.
	She was in the local hospital here in Dallas, Fort Worth, for a week.
	She received intravenous anticoagulants, went home on aspirin, no additional anticoagulants.
	When I saw her, she had very poor pulses in her legs.
	She had evidence of nerve damage in her arms and her legs.
	She couldn't walk.
	She was actually in a walker.
	I put her on additional anticoagulants.
	I did studies.
	I found blood clots up and down her blood vessels in her legs.
	I put her on even stronger blood thinners.
	And today I was notified by the Dallas coroner's office that she was dead.
	And I want to see the death certificate.
	I told the coroner's office I want to take a look at this because I can tell you her background case is that she simply had some mild emphysema that was treatable She was 64 and she shouldn't have lost her life after a vaccine.
	Did you talk to her at all?
	Yeah, I saw her twice as a clinical patient in my office.
	And did she attribute her injuries to the vaccine?
	Absolutely.
	And what was her attitude?
	She was regretful.
	And did she say that the doctors were responding in an appropriate way?
	She was admitted to an outside hospital initially, and I could not get a clear understanding if her event was reported to the CDC or if it wasn't.
	So I went ahead and did the reporting, and it looks like my report was the first.
	So this first event that she landed in the hospital, no one took the effort to report it.
	You know, one would actually have to get the vaccine card, which I needed, and have the lot numbers And carefully go through this and I have to enter in all my medical information, who I am, my office location, the original hospital location.
	It took me about a half an hour to do the entry.
	And I'm telling you the total number of these entries that have been certified by the CDC now of Americans is astonishingly 545,000.
	545,000 times doctors took an effort to the level that I did to enter in a vaccine injury or now a vaccine-related death.
	So I have to go back in now and update the CDC that, in fact, she's died.
	This is astonishing.
	We have never had this.
	The total number across 70 vaccines on the U.S. market, about 278 million shots, the total number of reports that go into the system per year are about 16,000.
	We're at 545,000 with the COVID-19 vaccine program alone.
	You know, you made a remark earlier that I didn't understand.
	You said that there was like an action level at 186 vaccines where they should have reviewed it, but there's no mandatory level at which point they pull a product, right?
	In this program, there appeared to be, there's no statistical analysis plan.
	There appeared to be absolutely no safety plan whatsoever, but I'm saying a properly designed program would have had a data safety monitoring board.
	They would have had periodic reviews based on accrual of data.
	And I can tell you that when the number of deaths would have exceeded a confidence limit where it was clear that it was now rising above a level Of which one could be confident that it's not the same as expected.
	If we have 150 deaths with 278 million shots in the United States, and they're not temporarily related to the vaccine, they get reported at different times, and now suddenly we're faced with 186 at 27 million shots with the COVID-19 vaccine.
	Any high quality day safety monitor board, and I tell you, I'm in this business.
	I do this.
	I've chaired over two dozen of these.
	I chair them for the National Institutes of Health.
	I chair them for Big Pharma.
	I can tell you, if I was chairing a day safety monitoring board, we would have had emergency meetings in January.
	And it is very likely, if we couldn't explain what was going on, we would have shut down the program in February.
	And then the CDC, of course, they don't even do autopsies.
	They don't even do any investigation, right?
	There's nothing happening.
	Well, on two occasions, the CDC has very casually put out on their website, one in March and one in June, they've put out a statement that the CDC doctors and FDA doctors have reviewed all the deaths and none of them are related to the vaccine.
	None.
	Not a single one.
	That includes these immediate deaths that occur in the vaccine center where the vaccine personnel are doing CPR, for instance.
	They concluded, and I tell you, at that point, when that first statement came out in March, I have to tell you, for me, that was probably the turning point for me.
	I was already behind on the mortality signal.
	That January 22nd landmark, I missed it clinically.
	I just missed it.
	But I think it was in the middle of March when they made that statement.
	I realized something was going on.
	It's the hardest thing for Americans to swallow this, but that's malfeasance.
	That's wrongdoing by those in position of authority.
	The FDA and the CDC in no way could have reviewed 1600 deaths.
	That takes forever to get all the hospital records, the death certificates, to review everything, to carefully look at when the vaccine was given, to have two separate reviewers They have to review it for causality.
	They have to make a causality assessment.
	When they disagree, there has to be a third adjudicator.
	That takes forever.
	They could not have put that together.
	They couldn't have put together the review structures and do that and have that type of due diligence.
	And they would have to be external experts because the CDC and the FDA, they're the sponsors of the program.
	These people's jobs depend on it.
	They're completely biased.
	They can't be the ones reviewing the desk.
	There must be external experts do it.
	We do it in every single clinical trial.
	In fact, the experts were involved in the original registrational trials.
	So the standards that were conducted when used for the registrational trials for all three manufacturers suddenly are thrown out, and now there's absolutely no safety paid attention to the public program.
	You know, in October of 2020, there's a slide set that was produced by the CDC, and they had all kinds of plans for monitoring safety during the public program.
	They were going to use a whole variety of databases.
	They were going to be checking things and quickly reviewing safety events as they occurred.
	None of that was done.
	None of it.
	None of the safety standards.
	Americans had absolutely no protection on safety during this program.
	It's a complete lapse of the regulatory standards for clinical investigation.
	Do you think it's possible that the vaccines are killing more people than would have died from COVID or causing more death and injury than they are averting?
	That's hard to estimate.
	In the United States, it's hard because we have such a big prevalence pool of COVID-19 and so much has happened.
	But we can go to other countries where they're kind of on the nascent ascent of their COVID-19 curve.
	So we can go to Australia and the data is clear there.
	More patients are dying of the vaccine.
	Then of COVID-19 by probably by a hundred fold or more.
	It's not even close.
	So I can tell you if we started de novo and we didn't have a legacy of deaths due to COVID-19, we started de novo and go forward, I think it's very likely the vaccine is actually causing more injury than the respiratory virus itself.
	Dr.
	Peter McCulloch, I'm going to let you go.
	I know you're in a rush and you're exhausted.
	Your incredible work taking care of these patients, trying to save American lives, and trying to demand integrity from our government officials.
	So thank you for all that you do.
	And me and my family will continue to pray for you and your work.
	And, you know, you're my hero.

▲