All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender
36:58
Censoring Dr Peter McCullough

Dr. Peter McCullough discusses a medical board censoring him and threatening to remove his certifications in this episode.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody.
It's a really huge honor for me today to have my friend and one of my real heroes, Dr.
Peter McCulloch, who's an internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist who has been the leader in the medical response to COVID-19.
In August of 2020, he published pathophysiological basis and rationale for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infection.
That article has been the most downloaded article in the Journal of the American Medical Association over the past...
Or the American Journal of Medicine Journal over the past two years and undoubtedly has saved many, many thousands of lives.
He's testified on several occasions in the U.S. Senate and before several state senates and congressional committees.
There's probably nobody who listens to this podcast regularly who doesn't know Dr. McCulloch.
He came on this show very early.
He was one of the first physicians to be willing to come on to this show because, you know, my name had been so blackballed and tainted by the propaganda push by the medical cartel that I was really radioactive at that time.
But he has a great deal of courage that I know comes from a very committed spiritual center from which all of the things that he does issue forth.
And.
I wanted Dr.
McCulloch to come back on the show because he has been under assault, and we all know that in the media.
And now he's being systematically stripped of his medical credentials.
The wall behind Dr.
McCulloch, which is loaded with credentials and licensure to practice medicine, cardiology, internal medicine, and all the other board certifications he has.
But those medical boards are in the thrall of the pharmaceutical industry and the medical cartel and the pharmaceutical paradigm for a variety of reasons, including really dramatic financial entanglements that they share with those companies, the companies that make vaccines.
And now the most important board of all, the American Board of Internal Medicine, has informed Dr.
McCulloch, here is a guy who not only is an incredible clinician, who's a healer, and a man of total integrity and impeccable ethics, But as a scientist, he's accomplished more by the principal metric by which scientific accomplishment is measured than any other physician in his field in history.
And the cartel is coming to try to de-license him because he told the truth to us about these vaccines.
The American Board of Internal Medicine informed Dr.
McCulloch In a recent letter, and listen to this, everybody, that McCulloch's statement is questioning COVID-19 vaccination for healthy people younger than the age 50.
And his claim, his outrageous claim, that Americans have died after getting a COVID-19 vaccine triggered a review with this group of Charlinans, which led to a recommendation that McCulloch's board certifications be revoked.
The ABIM's Credential and Certification Committee found that McCulloch had, quote, provided false and inaccurate medical information to the public, end quote.
So that itself is false and inaccurate medical information.
It is vaccine misinformation, technically.
And here's what their major complaint is.
Their indignation and their umbrage is that by casting doubt, On the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines with such seemingly authoritative statements made in various official forums and widely reported in various media, really not very widely reported in various media, but your statements pose serious concerns for patient safety.
Moreover, they are inimical to the ethics and professionalism standards for board certification.
And Peter was given until November 18th to appeal.
And I know you are going to appeal that.
But actually, as you have probably recently learned, and as I've known for a long time, because...
I was involved, you know, we financed, CHG financed Ken Stoller's case, a number of other cases by physicians who are fighting de-licensure.
The courts really give this incredible power to these groups to break, to violate law.
In fact, the Geyer's Lower court found that the agency, the Maryland Medical Board that he platformed, Dr.
Michael Kier, committed fraud and that they were taking money.
And then the appeals court says it doesn't matter.
They can still do it to you because they look at it as almost like a private company that can hire you or not, whatever they want.
They can either give you the license or not, but it's not up to the courts.
It's completely up to them.
So they have this dictatorial power that is...
They're exercising to promote the pharmaceutical companies rather than public health.
They no longer have any connection to a public health outcome.
It's all about pharmaceutical products.
I've talked too much.
I'm going to let you talk, Peter.
It's an incredible, mind-blowing reality.
And as Americans have grown to know me, I'm a frequent contributor on Fox News, but many news channels, I've been asked to give my testimony under oath, meaning my best efforts to interpret what's going on in this rapidly evolving pandemic to Americans.
So I've fulfilled my Duty as an American, when I've been called to serve, I've served.
And what an irony.
Steve Bannon, former White House advisor, is probably going to go to jail because he didn't show up to Congress and testify.
I showed up to the U.S. Senate twice, multiple state senates, upon request, and I testified.
And now I'm likely to be stripped of six years of my life.
You know, there's three years of internal medicine residency, three years of cardiology fellowship.
And the board's responsibility, the American board's responsibility is to make sure that I've completed those years and all the criteria, and that I've successfully done learning modules and passed exams.
And for internal medicine, I've passed four of these exams spaced out every 10 years.
I've passed three of them in cardiology.
My clinical track record has no blemishes.
I've been in practice, both internal medicine and cardiology.
The board's only...
Purview is the clinical integrity of medicine, primary care doctors, and specialists.
That's it.
So what happened was, in September of 2021, the American Board of Internal Medicine announced that they're going to have a COVID-19 misinformation initiative.
Without defining what misinformation is, without defining what doctors should say or not say, or What they thought were appropriate guardrails with no learning modules, nothing.
They just announced this.
And just as a backdrop, misinformation I found out appeared in the English language around 1500.
It was used widely in propaganda campaigns in Nazi Germany, for instance.
It's a well-known propaganda term.
And in 2018, misinformation was word of the year by Washington Post, that in fact, it was used in partisan politics so frequently that misinformation became part of, you know, the American colloquium, if you will.
But misinformation has never been in medical textbooks.
It was never on any of the board exams.
It's not a medical term.
There simply are scientific data, and then there's interpretive points of view.
So ABM launches this in September of 2021, and then they go back in time.
And then they review statements I made in the Texas Senate in March of 2021, and they declare that I have uttered misinformation.
And that's what starts this investigation.
Now, nowhere did the American Board of Internal Medicine say that they reviewed everybody, so there was nothing to suggest equal protection.
In their process, in my view, they didn't offer due process because it turns out that when they made these allegations and then I responded to them with a very, very detailed 20-page document citing all the sources that I used in my testimony, and I was answering questions on the fly.
And so, you know, to be able to support that with everything in the literature, which I did, Then they produced their evidence and said, aha, we think our evidence is this.
So they didn't even engage in proper rules of evidence.
And then lastly, it was...
Let me interrupt you because the evidence that they produced is essentially that CDC and WHO say the benefit of vaccines is greater than the cost.
That's it.
There's no scientific studies cited.
It's just these kind of absurd generalistic assurances that we've heard again and again that are these mantric tropes by these incredibly corrupt agencies that we know are captive by pharmaceutical interests and by China and the Gates Foundation.
And they have an agenda, which is to get Gates' vaccines to every arm in the world.
But because of these factors, so I have submitted an immediate request for dismissal based on procedural grounds, that this was ex post facto.
There was nothing to suggest equal protection.
There was nothing to suggest fair rules of handling evidence and asking for me to respond.
And then lastly, there was an adequate due process.
I asked to attend the meeting or see a transcript.
Nothing.
And then I also asked for dismissal on substantive grounds.
And that is that they actually declared a risk of the vaccine for mortality, a risk of, I'm sorry, risk of COVID, the illness, based on percentages of deaths in age group.
And that's not even how the CDC defines that.
The CDC defines it as the case fatality ratio, which I disclosed in my dismissal letter as being less than 1% in the groups that I So when I testified under oath that the risk of death due to COVID was negligible, I'm supported by the CDC and the CDC owns its own estimate on case fatality ratios.
So what's going on here is I expect not to have the ABIM provide any courtesy in response, that I will submit an appeal which will lay the groundwork for a lawsuit.
I will have to move forward with the lawsuit.
The dossier is already exhaustive.
Senator Ron Johnson called out Richard Barron of ABIM and said, listen, if you have a disagreement with Dr.
McCullough or anybody else, let's go out and discuss it.
Let's discuss it as a group and discuss the data.
Barron didn't even respond to Johnson.
Johnson invited me to the U.S. Senate.
Senator Hall in Texas, who invited me to Texas Senate, did the same thing and said, listen, we rely on Dr.
McCullough for his valid interpretation of what's going on.
We took that he did it under oath and to the best of his ability.
And then doctor letters came in, summary letters came in, patients.
People are outraged by this activity.
What we're on the verge of seeing in modern day is to have a doctor who is clinically qualified and competent beyond reproach.
And as you've stated, I'm the most published person in my field in the world in history.
I'm one of the most published people in COVID-19.
I have over 60 citations, listings in the National Library of Medicine on COVID-19.
And have that doctor, me, be stripped of six years of my life, stripped of my credentials as a practicing doctor for political reasons.
What do you mean six years of your life?
You've been a surgeon more than six years.
No, I've been an intern.
I did three years of internal medicine training, three years of cardiology fellowship.
The certification of that is by the American Bar of Internal Medicine.
So essentially, they are taking away That period of time for me was now...
They're taking away 30 years of your life, really.
They're taking away your profession, which is your life and your livelihood.
What they're taking from you, they're taking a lot more from the rest of us because you've been in such...
I mean, look...
I have so many personally, family members and friends who I believe their lives were saved because of your protocol, or if their lives weren't saved, their agonies were...
I've shortened and made much more durable.
I've probably, and this is without any exaggeration, but probably shared your protocol with several hundred people.
You know, because people are calling me all the time saying, I got COVID, what do I do?
And I just, I sent them your protocol and, you know, people call me again and again and say, thank you for sending me that.
It saved my life.
And you never know if it saved their lives or not, but you, people believe that.
It's a reasonable conclusion by reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms.
People have been helped.
We know that the protocols do that.
The mechanism by which people are hospitalized is because the symptoms become unbearable.
Hospitalization is a tractable outcome.
Virtually all the deaths occur in the hospital.
If the hospital is avoided through that chain of logic and The data published by Proctor, by Zelenko, by Didier Rialt, I've been participatory in those papers, suggests that, in fact, we do.
There's a paper by Guliaklis and colleagues that looked at all the early treatment studies, and he concluded by December of 2020, we had clear and convincing evidence that That means we had p-values less than 0.01 that early treatment was beneficial for patients.
And so I think based on that analysis, we're on the right track and we're always on the right track with early treatment.
I give broad credit to FLCC, Apircorium Palmeric, Didier Rialt in France, Vladimir Zelenko, myself, Proctor in Dallas.
We all worked together in the end, separately, initially, came up with early treatment approaches.
And you know what the broad estimate is?
The broad estimate is that probably hundreds of millions of hospitalizations have been avoided and tens of millions of deaths have been avoided.
This is major.
Remember, the United States, we're at a million deaths and 10 million hospitalizations.
Based on a learning curve, and when I gave in testimony at different points, my estimate is two-thirds retrospectively of both those numbers could have been avoided.
Going forward, 95% or more can be avoided now with the skills that we have.
So the early treatment, far and away, was the biggest advancement in COVID-19.
In vitro diagnostics, vaccines, other social distancing, lockdowns, none of them really had any impact.
It was all about early treatment, in my view.
You know, I should know the answer to this question, but where does this board get its power?
Is it because the license actually is state by state, you know, like a law license, right?
But this is a national organization.
Are they certified by the state legislature to issue licenses within the state?
No, where they get their power is as a board offering specialty and subspecialty certification.
There's another board, there's other colleges, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American College of Surgeons.
As a doctor, I can't contract with insurances for my services without being board certified.
That's actually part of the credentialing with insurances.
I can't hold hospital privileges in hospitals.
Now, there's been an attempt to have an alternative board arise, but that hasn't gotten enough traction to actually win insurance contracts or other things.
Now, the state licensure is something different.
In the state, you know, there's doctors and veterinarians and dentists and nurses have licenses, but those licenses simply say that the degrees have been awarded and the person is in good stead with the law.
So the state licensure is different than the board certification.
But as it goes forward right now, you know, this is what I think is going on.
I think what's going on is that there are powerful forces that are influencing these boards.
I don't think these boards are acting completely independently.
Everything I see indicates outside influence.
And by picking me, they're not actually going to succeed in silencing me, right?
So if they end my career, what's the obvious response?
I'm going to become even more visible, more vocal.
But what they're doing is they're trying to send a message to the other Probably 300,000 doctors with their certification say, listen, this is what we did to Dr.
McCullough.
This is a warning to anybody else who is going to speak up against the government narrative.
Yeah, I mean, that's the same thing they did to Andrew Wakefield, because in that seminal 1998 paper, he never said that the MMR vaccine caused autism.
He and the 12 other Co-authors who are all prominent doctors in England said, hey, of the 11 mothers of these children that we examined who had...
Autism that was linked to gastrointestinal problems.
And that was really the revelation of that study, is that, oh, we have a psychiatric disease that has a link to a physical gastrointestinal disorder.
And that was why the Lancet published that study.
But in it, they said, oh, by the way, our child got this problem right after the MMR vaccine.
And they said, this should be examined.
And then all hell broke loose, and the medical cartel, which is run by KlaxoSmithKline, which was making the vaccine over there, is all powerful in England.
It runs the Welcome Trust, it runs the NHS, and it runs the university system.
And it came down and said...
And all of the other physicians all backed down and said, oh, we take it back.
It's completely safe.
It doesn't cause autism.
And Wakefield and one other said, we're not going to do that.
We didn't say it did.
We're not going to go back and say it didn't.
And so Wakefield got the license.
The other doctor also got the license.
He sued.
He won the suit.
And the high court in England...
The Queen's Council said that the medical board had committed fraud and that, you know, this can never happen again.
Well, by then, Wakefield had lost his license and moved to the United States.
He couldn't sue because the insurance company wouldn't cover it.
The other guy would and he won the lawsuit.
But anyway, Wakefield was destroyed and he was used as an example.
If you're a doctor, you better not talk about vaccines because that's what we're going to do.
I'm going to just tell you one other story that you may not be aware of.
I first found out about the power of these local medical boards when I was working on mercury issues before I ever got near vaccines.
I was working on mercury and power plants, and I said, well, I saw all these studies that show that people who have mercury amalgam fillings Are much more likely to have neurologically injured children.
There's like a direct correlation between the number of fillings during pregnancy and the chances that your kid is going to have low IQ and these neurological symptoms.
And I learned at that point that Most states, dentist associations, have a rule that a dentist is not allowed to tell his patient about that risk.
If he does, he loses his license.
I was like, you've got to be kidding me.
That's the First Amendment.
Of course, he can tell them, you know, if he believes something to be true.
But it is a rule.
And those boards have empowered it.
Take away his license if he mentions to a patient that mercury may have risks associated with it.
And, you know, it's extraordinary.
You don't believe in this country that speech can be restricted in those dramatic ways, but it's true.
Well, what the American Board of Internal Medicine is doing to me is actually being memorialized into law in California.
California AB-2098.
Gavin Newsom signed that.
Stating that if a doctor is convicted of COVID misinformation, that the doctor will lose their license.
Now, it's not into effect right now.
It goes into effect January 1st.
And Jeff Barkey, family physician, and Mark McDonald, really internationally famous child psychiatrist, are suing the state of California trying to stop that.
But this idea of misinformation or this idea that a doctor...
In any way could have their free speech impaired.
It's such a threat to patients because what doctors will naturally do is not say anything.
And so patients are the ones harmed.
And privately, doctors in California have already told me, listen, they're not touching COVID with a 10-foot pole.
They're not going to risk losing their practices and their lives over this.
And so it's going to be the patients who are suffering with COVID, post-COVID syndrome, vaccine problems.
It is so complex.
Doctors need a free range of their full civil liberties to operate.
Our practice is dependent on...
Doctors render opinions.
They don't give government narratives.
And patients seek doctors for opinions and they seek second opinions.
So we're hoping that there'll be some fairness that will prevail.
I'm extremely worried, particularly this whole history of vaccines.
You know, John Leake and I, who have our first book, Courage to Face COVID-19, it's about the suppression of early treatment.
We think it was intentional to advance the COVID vaccines.
We're writing a second book now on the vaccines, and John is an investigative reporter and historian.
Basically, these vaccines are almost like a talisman.
It's almost as if through the course of time, people felt like their bodies are frail and they needed some type of external biotechnology support for a human body to move forward.
And now the Band-Aid has been ripped off the vaccines and now people are critically examining all the vaccines, myself included, and we're finding the absence of properly controlled trials.
We're seeing vaccines being administered for easily treatable illnesses now, like diphtheria and pertussis.
And we're seeing now an absolute assault.
We're seeing children without question are receiving something like over 70 injections.
When I was born and I was a small child, there's only three.
And there's probably been inappropriate attribution of success.
So even some of the early successes that were claimed to vaccines are probably more attributable to sanitation, other forms of medical care.
So what's happening now is there used to be a rate of what's called vaccine hesitancy in the United States.
That rate used to be roughly 2.5% of the population said, you know, I just don't want to do this or For other reasons I've talked to, I did a great interview with Dr.
Sherry Tenpenny on my podcast, and it was interesting.
I was a fully vaccinated doctor.
I took all the vaccines.
My mom took me in, and she was a completely unvaccinated doctor.
So she had never taken a single vaccine in her life.
And so we had two different perspectives.
But what we agreed upon is that vaccines, like any medical therapy, deserve reevaluation over time.
That nothing has a permanence.
Nothing is a talisman.
Nothing has an accept-based-on-faith type of existence in medicine.
Everything has its day.
The medicines we're using now are not the same ones we used in yesteryear.
And medicines get retired.
Vaccines should get retired.
And everything should undergo critical appraisal.
And the COVID-19 vaccine disaster has ripped the Band-Aid off this.
And now recent estimates are about 30% of parents now are very concerned about the entire vaccine schedule.
Yeah, well, there's a couple of studies that you should know about, you know, as you look into this issue.
One is There's a study that was done by Johns Hopkins and CDC. It's a CDC study, but they contracted out Johns Hopkins grantees to run it.
And it's called GUIER, G-U-I-E-R, and it's a 2000 study published, I think, at Pediatrics.
And it actually is really interesting because it looked at essentially 100 years of mortality and morbidity data for the CDC to see if If they could validate the idea that vaccines had saved millions of lives, which was, of course, the trope.
And what they found is that the vaccines had almost nothing to do with or any medical interventions, whether vaccines or antibiotics, and not had a clear, in terms of limiting mortalities for infectious disease.
And then there's another 1978 study called McKinley and McKinley that, you know, found the same thing and actually quantifies that it's less than 1% of the reduction of the 70% reduction in mortality since 1900 is attributable to vaccines.
So those are two interesting studies.
And the thing that you should know is that, first of all, there's a lot of crazy vaccines.
I mean, why are we giving retrovirus vaccines, hepatitis B vaccines to infants?
Of course, you can get hepatitis B from your mom.
But every mother in every hospital is tested for hepatitis B in the maternal ward before she has a child.
The hepatitis B vaccine was made for prostitutes and for promiscuous gay men, and Merck You know, CDC encouraged Merck to make it, and then they couldn't sell any.
Those cohorts just were like, are you kidding?
I'm not going to spend money on that.
Merck went back to CDC and said, we can't sell any of these.
We've created these very expensive production lines.
And CDC said, okay, we'll mandate it for kids.
And now they give five of those vaccines to children, and the children simply aren't at risk with the disease.
And then the retrovirus vaccine is the same thing.
In this country, kids just don't die of retrovirus, but they do die of insusception, which is caused by the retrovirus vaccine.
And what I say is what you've said.
I'm not anti-vaccine.
That's like saying I'm anti-medicine.
If the vaccine works, if you can take a vaccine...
And five years from now, you're more likely to be healthy and alive than the guy who didn't take it, and I'm all for it.
But what we have said for years is no vaccine has gone through not a single one of those 72 injections.
Has ever gone through a placebo-controlled trial prior to licensing?
And Tony Fauci, when I met him and he said, you've been saying that and it's not true.
He was saying for years, Bobby is telling a lie when he says none of them have been tested.
And I said, Tony, show me the test.
And he said, I'll send them to you.
And of course, he never did.
So we sued him, Aaron, Siri, and I. And after a year in litigation, HHS on the courthouse steps...
Gave us the concession.
Yeah, we have never tested a single one of the mandated child vaccines prior to licensure and placebo-controlled trials.
Not one.
Well, let me just jump in there with a couple more citations.
Just on recent evidence, this is important because I mentioned, I'm a practicing cardiologist and internist.
Everything is open for reexamination.
A vaccine that I pushed in my practice for years was a pneumococcal vaccine.
And a paper by Amber Hassow and colleagues, published in JAMA, in JAMA 2022, published from 4 million people who took this pneumococcal vaccine, that the vaccine efficacy against hospitalized pneumococcal pneumonia was 9.4%.
The confidence interval was 2.1 to 16.1, and the p-value was 0.01.
Well, I can tell you what my interpretation is on this, and the doctor's interpretation in the end is the final court here.
I interpret that as being clinically insignificant, meaning it's not worth it for a 9% vaccine efficacy.
I'd want to see at least 50% protection before I'm going to expose anybody to the stochastic risk of a side effect.
50% would be, you know, like flipping a coin.
You want at least more than flipping a coin, right?
You just used a word that I don't know.
Stochastic.
What is that?
Stochastic means that it just happens by random chance alone.
So this idea...
That the pneumococcal vaccine ought to be this clinical imperative, I think should be absolutely dropped.
It's fallen out of my routine recommendations now.
Now, it doesn't mean I'm not anti-vaccine.
If there's somebody with severe emphysema and they think maybe they can get any advantage, what have you, fine.
But it's not going to be something that my routine patients are going to get.
I'll give you another example.
Chung and colleagues published in MMWR in 2022.
The vaccine efficacy for the influenza vaccine.
The MMWR is mortality and morbidity.
Right.
It's the CDC's journal.
The CDC's journal.
MMWR is morbidity and mortality.
We can report CDC. But Chung and colleagues, you know, had the data for the vaccine efficacy for influenza last year.
And the number was 16% vaccine efficacy for influenza.
And that's just the binary outcome if you get it or not.
And that's statistically insignificant from zero.
So I can tell you, when my patients ask me, Dr.
McCullough, should I get a flu vaccine?
I'd say, listen, they've got a long way to go to get that up to an acceptable vaccine efficacy over 50%.
There's been enough antigenic drift.
That the manufacturers have lost any control over stopping this, that it's not worth the stochastic risk or this random risk of having a side effect, a neurodegenerative side effect.
You know, there's a whole variety of side effects, as you're well aware, of influenza vaccine.
So a critical reappraisal of efficacy is changing my practice and should change the practice of evidence-based doctors.
We should, for no therapy, take it on a faith that the products are safe and effective.
What the American Board of Internal Medicine has done with me, if you read into their letter, they are assuming the COVID-19 vaccines are good.
They're assuming they're safe and effective.
And because I've made statements that just caused somebody to think about this, now they are prepared to professionally injure me permanently.
So, and apparently you have not learned your lesson from this because the last couple of things you've said to me are just going to dig your hole deeper with this medical board.
And now you're criticizing other vaccines too.
They're going to really, you're a dangerous man to them.
You're a dangerous guy because, you know, you're at the top of your field and you're not going along with the religion.
You're not going along with the orthodoxy.
The current times, I think, have called all rational doctors to...
To really carefully evaluate what's going on.
We are still under a COVID-19 national emergency extended by Biden now multiple times.
We are currently under a monkeypox national emergency.
Now I haven't heard a single doctor or nurse Comment that they felt like there's any emergency situation for either one of those for a long time.
I honestly think the COVID emergency that I see in terms of hospital capacity, that was over with in January of 2021.
It was largely because we got enough early treatment networks together to take that strain off the healthcare system.
So there has been no emergency, and I think only doctors can declare emergencies, and we can't have We saw the World Health Organization actually try to get worldwide approval to have global control over declaring emergencies.
So you could see what's going on here.
If governments And world bodies can declare emergencies.
Now they can begin to affect various public health policies and other strategies.
And very importantly, open the doors of treasuries to drain them dry.
And that money flows into this biopharmaceutical complex of which the suppliers, the vaccine manufacturers, others, they are the financial benefactors of this.
All of this is done with no voting.
With no omnibus reconciliation, with no reconsideration.
And people should be alarmed of what's going on.
We spent 10% of our GDP on COVID response without any voting, without any consensus.
And it's thrown us into this inflationary spiral.
And now the same thing is now happening with monkeypox.
I think monkeypox was an attempt to try to do this, create mass hysteria, And then promote the strategy.
And it was clear they weren't promoting the safe and effective drug, which is Ticovirumat, which you have a whole national stockpile.
We didn't hear about that.
The only thing people heard about was the Genios double-stranded monkeypox vaccine, which actually turns out to cause heart damage or myocarditis.
We're right back to the We're good to go.
Is there a quick fix for fixing these medical boards so that they cannot destroy the Hippocratic oath and the relationship between doctors and delicensed doctors for telling the truth to their patients when it's critical of a pharmaceutical product?
What I would do is I would probably assign the Department of Justice or something that where we have under executive branch control and launch an investigation into the Federation of State Medical Boards, the underlying state medical boards and the major boards.
And this would largely be analogous to what a state attorney general would do.
And we'd look for people's human rights to be violated.
We can't have any type of membership.
I don't care if you're in the automobile club or anything else where we're going to violate human rights.
Supreme Court has already upheld in 2018 that doctors have the right to free speech.
And I can tell you, anybody listening to this, if a prominent doctor is called to testify under oath, And that brings a doctor into a situation of professional reprisal, ending his career.
We ought to look at what type of country we're in right now.
Thank you.
We'll keep you updated.
The battle continues, but thanks so much for your advocacy and everything you're doing.
You're making a big impact.
The only court that's open is public opinion right now.
And I tell you, public opinion is not swinging towards these vaccines.
That's clear, right?
I mean, there's only a trend the other way.
It will continue.
There's not a single person I've talked to who said, well, I'm going to start taking these vaccines now.
I mean, it's just one piece of bad news after another.
We don't need VAERS. We don't need it.
We just can follow the peer-reviewed medical literature.
That's good enough.
And it's horrendous.
Peter McCulloch, thank you very much.
Thanks for joining us.
Thanks for your courage, your integrity, and for your commitment to American democracy.
▲
Export Selection