Transcript for #1747 - Dr. Peter A. McCullough

I'm Dr. Peter McCullam, an internist and cardiologist. I'm also trained in epidemiology. I'm an academic practice in Dallas, Texas. So I see patients about half the time I saw patients yesterday, drove down today to see you here in the studio. And the rest of my time, I spend as an author and editor, I'm an editor of a major journal in cardiovascular medicine, the former editor of an international journal. And the president of a major medical society right now currently, about five years into that position. And, you know, I frequently publish. In my field, I study the interface between heart and kidney disease. I'm the most published person in my field in history. I have over 650 publications in the National Library of Medicine. I imagine that's probably ahead of anybody you've had on the show. They mentioned Paul Merrick. I'm just ahead of Paul Merrick. Peter Korea mentioned him in critical care. I'm just ahead of Paul a lot younger than he is. And in COVID, when COVID hit, I really dropped everything to put all of my academic efforts on this, because I saw it as an all hands-on deck situation.

I didn't see this coming, to tell you that truth was pretty happy and life medicine was moving along for me and had a very highly ranked position at a major academic medical center and traveled frequently. And did all the things we normally do in academic medicine, you know, meeting, interchanging, challenging, being skeptical with one another. That is the life blood of academic medicine. And things are going great in March. This hit, we immediately took efforts. We thought it was going to hit Dallas. We started looking at things, how to configure our work forces. I went and got a grant, got a large grant to study a prevention approach to protect our workers at our healthcare facility. And I work with the FDA over a weekend to get an investigation and a drug application awarded in my name in order to test a prophylactic approach. And things were going great in March. And I can tell you, it wasn't but a few weeks in April. On these task force calls, I was on routine health system calls once a week, and I was on one with the National Institute's health. And I asked a question, I said, when are we going to start to treat the problem? I hope people are getting sick up there. They're starting to be hospitalized, so I'm not dying. When are we going to start the treat patients? It's too late for the hospitals, too late to treat people as obvious they're dying in the hospital. We must start early and you could basically hear a pin drop on these calls. No one had an idea about treating COVID-19 at home.

I think it was a grip of fear. Doctors for the first time in their lives felt like they could get the disease themselves. If they actually saw an exam in these patients, All the discussion was on personal protective equipment, hand sanitizer, negative airflow rooms. It was all about protecting the healthcare workers. There wasn't any focus on sick patients. And after the weeks went by, I became incredibly frustrated. I started communicating with our Italian colleagues. I said, what's going on? You guys are getting blasted in Milan. Is there anything we can do to treat patients at home and stop these hospitalizations?

There were no treatment protocols that emerged. We started looking at work done by Didier, Realt, MRSA, France. by Vladimir Zelenko in Monroe, New York, and started communicating very early on with the Italians. And I had great relationships with the Italians in Milan. And what we had decided is we had decided on some principles early on. The first collaboration and my contribution was really to get people together, get the ideas together and publish. And I had the publication strength that other people didn't. And got the first organized ideas together in April, May, June. We submitted our paper July 1st to the American Journal of Medicine, which is one of the highly ranked journals in medicine. And it was published in August. And this is the first publication teaching doctors how to treat COVID-19 with a multi-drug regimen. And the Grand Wills were this. We knew it was insufficient time for large randomized trials. So let's take two to four years. I lead large randomized trials. I published in the New England Journal of Medicine. I know it. This is about a month during committees. We don't have two to four years. This is a mass casualty situation. We use the precautionary principle, meaning that this is a mass casualty event. We can't wait. We're looking for drugs with a signal of benefit and acceptable safety. We knew very early on that this viral infection had three components. It was viral replication, cytokine storm or inflammation, and then thrombosis. So we know a single drug wasn't kind of handled a problem. No way. It was going to be a multi-drug regimen, just like with HIV, just like with hepatitis C, no difference. We multi-drugs. So precautionary principle, we used signals of benefit, acceptable safety, drugs in the combination, test, retest, and go. And so at the time we submitted our paper, Joe, There was about 4,000 papers in the peer-viewed literature on COVID-19. I'm sorry, check that. There was 55,000 papers in the peer-viewed literature on COVID-19 and about 4,000 that could have related to certain drugs, but not a single one put the concepts together and how to treat patients.

August of 2020, American General Madison, the title, the paper was the pathophysiologic rationale for the early ambulatory treatment of COVID-19. That quickly after August spawned the association of American physician and surges home treatment guides. So AAPS, interesting organization, is independent doctors. They accept no money from pharmaceutical agencies. There are the better ones since 1943. They had early on sued the federal government to release the stockpile of hydroxychloroquine. You know, U.S. had the right ideas, other countries. They stockpiled hydroxychloroquine. Then there was the problem of it wasn't being released from the stockpile. And so during my development work early in 2020, I got a call from the White House, Peter Navarro called me. So listen, Makala, can you help me get hydroxychloroquine release, Rick Brighton, others in the FDA, seem to be colluding to block hydroxychloroquine coming out of the stockpile. In Marseille France, did he or we all was working with hydroxychloroquine. And it was over the counter in France. They made a prescription and they started making it hard for him to use. And then simultaneously in Australia, they had taken hydroxychloroquine and they had put it up in Queensland as basically an untouchable drug. If a doctor attempted to use hydroxychloroquine to treat a COVID patient in early April, that doctor can be put in jail. So these things started happening early to try to prevent treatment of patients with COVID-19.

Well, 2006, forward, there were studies with hydroxychloroquine that demonstrated that it reduced replication of SARS-CoV-1, the first version of the SARS virus.

Originally there was chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and methylquine. So there's anti-malarials. They're similar in terms of their biochemical property, but they have three mechanisms of action. They increase the lysosomal pH, so when the particles take it into the cell, it doesn't travel so well to the nucleus. The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine bring in zinc. It's a zinc ionophore zinc goes in and actually antagonizes the RNA-dependent polymerase, which is needed for the virus to replicate. And then hydroxychloroquine is a well-known and established anti-inflammatory. We use it in lupus. We use it in rheumatoid arthritis. And it's obviously an intracellular anti-infective. We use it for the perfection of malaria.

I have to look at the timeline boy it was quick because the backlash against hydroxychloroquine was so strong in Brazil and Australia. Why do you think that is though? The timing that the question is did it happen before after Trump said anything. It happened very quickly, you know, through the course of the year was extraordinary. You know, the second largest producer of hydroxychloroquine, the plant was mysteriously burned down outside of Taipei. It was extraordinary what was going on. Doctors from Africa were telling us that, you know, there were some type of mercenary people rating the pharmacies at night and burning the hydroxychloroquine.

We have to be careful. The emergency use authorization is a new mechanism, or a previously unused mechanism for regulatory pathways of drugs. And my interpretation of it, and everybody's interpretation is fair game, so it's pretty loosely written quite honestly, depends on indication. So a vaccine would be indicated for the prevention of COVID-19 illness. Hydroxychloroquine or Bammalivimab, or any of these other drugs, we approved for the treatment of CO, so two separate indications. So the EOS should not be viewed in my view as competitive. In fact, it can't, because remember Bammalivimab, the Lily product, as well as Remdesivir, the Gilliat product, they preceded the vaccines, and they didn't preempt the vaccines coming out of the market.

Remdesivir was basically a repurposed failed Ebola drug. And it does have intellectual property ties through Gilead back to the Chinese. So the Chinese originally were collaborating with us very tightly. I mean tons of emails from the Chinese. They were trying to alert us what's going on with COVID-19. From Desivir came up, it's a polymerase inhibitor. As a general, I told you hydroxychloroquine has three machinos of action. You reviewed previously Iver Macden, which also has three separate macros of action. Ram Desivir is a one-horse show. It's a single macros of action. It inhibits the polymerase. And it unfortunately, as the data have borne out, it's given far too late in the illness, right? So the polymerase is active early in file replication. So if you gave it on day one, it may actually do something. But if you give it on day 14 by time someone comes in the hospital, the virus is done replicated at that point in time. And that all it can do is offer toxicity in your right. It's a five day infusion of remdesivir. Early on, we heard about the hepatic toxicity in my experience. I could never get a patient through five days of therapy because the liver function tests the AST and ALT with skyrocket. Now, it's become clear it's been associated with acute kidney injury. And the kidney injury is not tolerated in COVID-19 because any recension of fluid makes the oxygen saturation in lungs far worse.

It was clear that hydroxychloroquine was the most promising drug that we had for COVID-19. By the way, we tested Rotonavir, Lipinavir, HIV drugs. I quickly felt to the side. Other drugs were tested, but hydroxyc came forward as the lead agent. And currently, we're up to 300 completed studies with hydroxychloroquine, 32 early treatment studies. And it does have an effect size or an efficacy early in treatment of about 64% globally across the studies. And its toxicity profile is well understood. Hydroxychloroquine, like I vermactin and the other drugs, are already FDA approved. The FDA tells doctors to use drugs off label. It's in their guidance to us. And actually, they have a FDA has a piece to patient. So it was published in 2018 saying, why does your doctor use off label drugs? And it says, when the doctors are fulfilling an unmet need, I.E. COVID-19, there's no no no no drugs for COVID-19. So we use these drugs was called clinically indicated medically necessary appropriate off-label use of drugs. Hydroxy was the first one up. A giant mistake was to actually place an emergency use authorization on a drugs and quirk went. And the original EU way that was placed on hydroxy, which it didn't need one, because it was already on the market, right? It was placed for inpatient use. And then the interpretation was that it was a hydroxy quirk when was restricted at inpatient use. So once it became restricted at inpatient use, then there was messages saying, listen, don't use it unless somebody's an inpatient. Then, when we found out that hydroxychloroquine, like Ivermactin, works best early and has less of an effect late, like all the other drugs whose people are too far gone, once those trials were completed, there's five randomized trials of inpatients with hydroxychloroquine. As they're about to go on the ventilator, and those five trials are neutral. They don't show harm, they don't show benefit. They're neutral. One of them was the NIH trial. There's only two placebo-controlled trials, by the way. So, we've based the entire house on hydroxychloroquine. on two placebo controlled small inpatient trials that were didn't have sufficient power to see an effect if indeed it was there. Having said that they were flat on the outcomes of mortality and progression in the hospital. And so based on that, in June of 2020, the FDA came out across the board and said, based on this, do not use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Period. Period. Full stop. They never reviewed the data a second time or a third time. And I can tell you as a doctor, the FDA, the CDC and the NIH are public service agencies to me and you. We don't work for them. They don't issue us rulings. They work for us. And I'm telling you as a leader in academic medicine, my expectation was monthly reviews from those three entities and the White House test force. May affect the White House test force can do it. I needed a monthly report of what drugs are working and what drugs weren't. We didn't see any of that. Why do you think that is?

I talked to Scott Atlas, I presented with him a couple weeks ago, and I had dinner with Scott. He was on the inside. He worked side by side with his people for months. And I said, Scott, what is going on? Scott goes, I did what Peter McCullough would do. I showed up every day with the data. I analyzed things. I had the updates. I'm what's going on, the pendant. Scott was focused on mass, contagion, control, and schools, but he's an academic. He's at Stanford Hoover Institute. I said, yeah, I said, what about the other people on the test force? What about the head of the NAAD? What about the CDC director? He goes, they showed up with nothing. I said, you got to be kidding me. They're not analyzing any data. He goes, have you ever seen them come on TV and analyze any studies? I said, no. He thinks that this is a crisis of academic incompetence, believe it or not.

It wasn't me, but someone in the crowd, this was a podium that was held by Pam Popper, by the way. Pam Dr. Popper's got a wonderful book out on COVID-19, and so to Scott Atlas, his is about the White House, and someone in that audience asked Scott. So listen, do they have another intention? Were they directly trying to squash hydroxychloroquine at the time? He said, no, he said they had good intentions for the nation. He says they're just incompetent.

As I recall that was late March, I think when it was honestly made illegal in Australia, it was early April. You know, I went on Tucker Carlson, we had the same type of discussion. Tucker says, how did the Australians know to make it illegal so early in April? He goes, that's before all the research was done. Remember, Henry Ford came out with a 3,000 patient study and actually used in the hospital, it wasn't randomized, but they got consent. It was very carefully done. I was a program director at Henry Ford in the past. I know that institution really well. High quality top shelf. I was communicating with them. They said, listen, it works. It is clear. It works. This is an unconfounded study. And that was one of the studies that, in fact, we relied upon, in order to put hydroxychloroquine in sequence multi-drug therapy. That was before the data with hyvermecting came in. So, hyvermecting came in later. But, and so our update, when we published our update in December of 2020, we brought in Ivermectin. The Japanese had told us about Favie Pierovere and the Russians had. A lot of people don't know this. There is an oral anti-viral approved and used in Japan and Russia in four states in India, called Favie Pierovere. That is an oral polymerase inhibitor, so it's like an oral remdesivir. It's very similar to the new drug, Mola Pierovere. This is an oral polymerase inhibitor. So the antivirals we actually buy our recommendations now had three antivirals that we could recommend worldwide for that layer of treatment. Now, antivirals alone are not sufficient and they are not necessary to treat COVID-19. It's very interesting for people to say this. People wanted to put up hydroxychloroquine up on a pedestal and say, listen, if we can knock down hydroxychloroquine, there will be no treatment for COVID-19. And we can promote some other agenda, or if we can knock down I vermectin. And Dr. Chetty from South Africa, and Dr. Brantios from South America, given the politicization of both drugs, because I vermectin in the next wave became the next target of politicization, if you will, if it's in the politics. But I have to tell you, it's so worldwide. I hate that word politicization. I think it's some other process. But the point is, they demonstrated that the syndrome as an outpatient can be treated without those drugs. They use a different combination of drugs in this sequence. The chatty method is called the time method. In a sense, you let the virus make its run on replication, and then pick it up with Montelucas, Cypraheptidine, and hailed steroids, oral steroids, and then anticoagons. They treat the back end of the syndrome.

Oh, absolutely. You know, I vermectin now is a first line of Japan. It's attributed to crushing the curves in Mexico, in Peru, absolutely crushed the curves in India. We've been in close communication with them. I vermectin is an interesting drug and I know you've reviewed it in depth in this show. So I'll leave it to experts like Dr. Corey and others there. But, you know, I use it every day in my practice. I have no problems with I vermectin. It's safe and effective. It's been a Nobel Prize awarded in 2015 for Ivermectin. But hydroxychloroquine, I think worldwide, is still the leading drug used to treat COVID-19. Just because of its availability, it's known dosing, the nice thing about the interesting thing between hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. is I've remacked and has a range inpatient and outpatient, and has a bigger effect size in general. Both of them have are still lacking the 20 to 40,000 patient clinical trial as a singular drug. I honestly don't think we'll ever get there. By the way, we're in the multi-drug space, so we're never going to go back to single drugs. We're in the multi-drug environment, and so there are no large multi-drug trials even planned at this point in time. So we're left with where we are signals of benefit, acceptable safety. But to finish the thought, I vermectin has a range of effect sizes that are gratifying inpatient and outpatient, diminishing efficacy later. Hydroxychloroquine has really no support on the inpatient side outside the big Henry Ford study, so hydroxies largely in outpatient drug. The advantages of hydroxychloroquine are stable dosing 200 milligrams twice a day. We either go five, 10 or 30 days. We even have protocols where it's been done that way. I've remacked in the dosing is 200, 400 or 600 micrograms per kilogram. And the dose intervals still are yet to be standardized or worked out. So it's interesting. So you see an entire range of doses that I've mentioned. Even clinically today, I don't know. Do I go five days, do I do 10 days, do I do every other day? I don't know. We use the drugs and I'm comfortable with that. I can live with ambiguity in the setting of a crisis. The point is these are very safe and effective drugs or useful drugs. I saw a trend. You've asked me three times so I'm going to answer it. I've saw a trend starting in April, May and June. where it became clear that anything we were doing to try to help patients with early treatment was receiving a chill. And the chill was coming through academic institutions through the medical literature. I think the capa was in June when there was a fraudulent paper published in Lancet on hydroxychloroquine between Harvard and a company called Surgesphere. And this never happens. Lance is like the New England Journal Medicine of the World. I'm an editor of Major Journal. I run a journal. I know what it takes. They're editors associate editors, reviewers. There is pinpoint accuracy. We check references. We check plagiarism. Believe me, it's a tight world out there. They basically published a fraudulent paper on Hydroxychloroquine in Lancet in 2020, around June. And they let it hang up there for two weeks, dating. That hydroxychloroquine was associated with harm when used in patients with COVID-19. I mean, we made this study. It was between one investigator was at Harvard and it was by a company called Surgesphere that nobody knew if this company was. It turned out to be a company that literally just dissolved or went away without anybody understanding.

Don't know. I don't know. I can tell you, so I looked at the data, Joe, and they had tens of thousands of people. They claimed we're hospitalized with COVID-19 fairly early in the pandemic. The average age of these people's hospitals was in the low 40s. I looked at this paper in two seconds. I was like, this doesn't make sense. We were hospitalized in people in their 80s, not in their 40s. And so to me, it didn't, it didn't look right. And then people started writing in Lancet, saying, listen, this doesn't look real. And they started receiving tons of emails and then Lancet basically retracted it and said we retracted no apologies no explanation. I interpret that and that occurred right before the FDA said don't use hydroxychloroquine. It almost looked like it was a step to basically try to bury hydroxychloroquine as a therapy.

As a doctor, all I can tell you is the medical literature as we are seeing it come about. There was once the discovery that the spike protein on the virus. The discovery in the medical literature, now that discovery we learned actually occurred years before this, was amenable to neutralization with vaccine-induced antibodies. Once that became abundantly clear in the literature, there appeared to be almost a lockstep developed, where people said, aha, that's it. That's the solution. We're going to vaccinate our way out this problem. We don't even need to worry about how to treat the problem. We don't need to hear about drugs to treat the problem. and the enthusiasm and the hubris for vaccination spread across academic medical centers all of the country.

I published an op-ed in August of 2020, in the Hill, a Republican journal for Washington, people and others in those circles. And the title of the op-ed was the Great Gamble of the COVID-19 Vaccine Development Program. And what I saw is I saw a total shift on everything for the vaccines. Do you know major clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine were dropped? I've remacked and things were dropped. We had programs for Favvy Pureveer. The Canadians had a big thrust for Favvy Pureveer's dropped. I was the principal investigator over all for the Ramachaban program that was a Japanese product. It was an anti-coagulant anti-Histamine. It looked very promising. We had great preliminary data. We had bear that was going to give us all the doses we needed to treat America. I was on calls between the NIH and the FDA back and forth back and forth. I couldn't get any traction in the summer of 2020. It was obvious. In fact, I remember one of the operation warp speed officers tell me, I listen, sorry. We have everything organized for the current program. I was also the assistive. I was this kind of second and charge of the Amodulon program, which was a cellular-based vaccine. That was a vaccine similar to the BCG vaccine, which is given for tuberculosis. We had noticed that regions that were vaccinated for tuberculosis, like Haiti and the countries in Central Africa, very little COVID. And so we had the idea. We got a Dutch manufacturer to actually make this cellular-based vaccine. We're going to vaccinate healthcare workers. Same thing, endless proposals between NIH and FDA got nowhere because it looked like it was already pre-decided that the current set of genetic vaccines were going to move forward. There wasn't going to be any discussion on early treatment. I thought it was a gamble. I was faced with more and more of my patients getting sick with COVID-19. And when I told people, all over a cellist and I can't let the virus slaughter my patients. I'm not going to do it. I said, there's got to be something I could do. Early on, I used hydroxychloroquine, other drugs and combination. Once a pure quarry, I give him great credit. His first contribution is actually steroids in the use of COVID-19. So we started using steroids once it was shown to us. We added steroids. The data started coming out anticoagulants. And that's how I put it together. I tell you, Joe, every single one of my high-risk patients, I've always treated to prevent hospitalization and death of the 800,000 deaths that we are right now. I can tell you to a one. They've received either no or inadequate early treatment. all of them. Go look in a table of baseline characteristics of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and look at what they received before they came to the hospital. Zilch. In fact, there's one paper by Ipp and colleagues, the last name is spelled IP. It was published from New Jersey early on. And in that paper, back when there was a surge of hydroxychloroquine use in the spring of 2020, 7% of people had received some pre-hospital hydroxychloroquine before they got to the hospital. They had improved survival. Even some pre-hospital treatment really worked. So what happened is when we came up with our treatment protocols of protocol that I mentioned, it sounds like describing what you received as a treatment. You basically received the McCulloch protocols. Now, I've been copyrighted. It's sequence multi-drug. Once the monoclonal antibodies came in, that became building block in our program, and we can maybe show that my multi-drug protocol on the screen if we can look at it. The point is that any pre-hospital treatment was associated with improved survival because we're taking an edge off our application, reducing some of the information, preventing some of the thrombosis. If we let this thing run for 14 days, The lungs are filled with blood cuts by the time the oxygen saturation goes down, that's not the virus. The Italian showed us through autopsy studies, very courageous autopsy studies, the lungs are filled with micro blood cuts.

I testified in the U.S. Senate November 19, 2020, I told Americans, under oath. that 50% of the lives at that time could have been saved. We were at about 250,000 deaths. Based on what I knew, I then testified on March 10th, 2021 in the Texas Senate. Sworn testimony. I up that 85% of the deaths could have been avoided. We know that because we carried out studies we did one with proctor here in Dallas Fort Worth, where we demonstrated that even the early primordial protocols before the monolant colonel antibodies, when we use drugs and combination, were associated with 85% reductions in hospitalizations and deaths compared to fair compared to a group's in for death. We use the tricone area in DFW averages age adjusted and for hospitalization, we use the Cleveland Clinic calculator, which is a very precise estimate of the risk of hospitalization. Then, as simultaneously, Durwant and Zelanko show that from our own New York data, and then did a re-alt showed it from our safe friends. So we have three different areas showing early multi-drug therapy as an outpatient works, substantially, and we've had a giant loss of life. a giant number, millions and millions of unnecessary hospitalizations, and it seemed to me, and I had said, I've told Tucker Carlson and many others, it seems to me early on, there was an intentional, very comprehensive suppression of early treatment in order to promote fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization, and death. And it seemed to be completely organized and intentional in order to create acceptance for and then promote mass vaccination.

It's not just my idea, and now it's completely laid out by the book by Dr. Pam Popper, the book recently published by Peter Bregan, COVID-19 and the global predators. We are the prey. I wrote one of the introductions, Dr. Lee, Lee Fleet, and Dr. Flatimal, Ranko, Los Alancos, wrote the other introductions. These books are basically non-fiction. They have a thousand citations in the Bregan book showing how it was coordinated and plant. Now Bobby Kennedy has his book out the real Anthony Fauci. I'm the most mentioned physician in that book. I can tell you that if you want to find the evidence that Moderna was working on the vaccine before the virus ever emanated out of the lab, if you wanted to find the collusions and the operations between the Gates Foundation and Gavvy and SEPB and Pfizer and Moderna and the Vaccine Manufacturers and the Wuhan Lab and the National Institute of Health and Ralph Barrick and USA North Carolina at Chapel Hill and how all this was organized. If you want to see that Johns Hopkins planning seminar called the Spires pandemic in 2017 where they had a symposium people showed up. They wrote up their symposium findings. They published this. It says it's going to be a coronavirus. It's going to be related to MERS and SARS. It's going to come over here to the United States. It's going to shut down cities and frighten people. There's going to be confusion regarding a drug. Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin. And we're going to utilize all that in order to railroad the population into mass vaccination. It's laid out in the Johns Hopkins Sparse Pandemic Training Seminar. The only thing that got wrong was the year. They said it was going to be 2025 instead it landed a few years early.

We think there's about 500 doctors, who knows what's going on in the United States. 500. We've got a million doctors in the United States. We've got half a million nurse practitioners in physician assistants. I can tell you the nurses are more awake than the doctors. Why is the doctors appear to be like many of our leaders? By the way, all the leaders of the major churches, every single one of them, the major religious branches are under the spell. Every major global international leader is under the spell. We're in what's called a mass formation psychosis. This is very important. I give credit to Dr. Matthias Desmet in the University of Gent in Belgium and recently Dr. Mark McDonald's psychiatrist from LA. Mark McDonald's got a new book out. The United States of Fear describing how the mass psychosis develop. What your listeners need to know is a mass psychosis is when there is a group think that develops that's so strong that at least to something horrific and the examples are these mass suicides that occur in these religious cults. The example is Nazi Germany when people walk into gas chambers and we're gas these horrific things and four elements here is very important show. First there must be a period of prolonged isolation lockdowns. Number two, there must be a withdrawal of things taken away from people that they used to enjoy. That's happened. Number three, there must be constant, incestant, free floating anxiety. All this new cycle, all the deaths and the hospitalizations, more variant, mutant strains, everything, people that could be coming scared over and over again. And the last thing, number four, the capper, the capper is there must be a single solution offered by an entity in authority. And in this case, it's clear. Worldwide, the solution was vaccination. Everybody must take the vaccination. It's not a U.S. program. It's not a European court. It's everywhere. And you know what joke doesn't matter what vaccine it is. It could be a China-Vac coronavirus. It could be another Vex. It could be Pfizer, Moderna, J&J. It's interesting that it doesn't even matter what vaccine it is. It's just take a vaccine, take any vaccine. And so what mass psychosis says is number four, the solution, there's no limit to the absurdity of the solution.

You know, if it was about COVID, I would say that the world would have adopted something when I presented to the American people and the Senate testimony in November of 2020. I told America, listen, there's four pillars to pandemic response. We should have always seen teams of doctors in Washington. I would have went if they called me. In fact, I emailed them. They know I am. We would have seen teams of doctors in Washington working at four pillars. The first pillar is reduce the spread of infection. Terrific. You know, everything we can to improve airflow. We know it's spread by the air. It's not a hand infection. This focus on hand sanitizers like we were all getting infected. You still go on DFW airport. There's hand sanitizers every six feet. You know, there was pictures of people spraying football stadiums with sanitizers. It's not spread on football seats. It's not a contact organism. It's not Ebola. It's not, you know, it's not a costume difficile. It's spread in the air. But if we would have focused on contagion control that was reasonable, that would have been terrific. The most effective contagion control, by the way, is 2021 data, is actually using oral nasal viral cytotherapy. Explain that, please. Yeah, oral nasal virus, viral cellotherapy is basically using, you know, virtually anything kills the virus. Any disinfecting kills the virus. I a dine kills it on contact. So if we use dilute bedadine, and so if you take a bedadine over the counter, it's a brown bottle we use it to sterilize wounds in the ear, bite it any pharmacy. and take two teaspoons and six ounces of water. Take a nasal spray or a syringe bulb and spray it up your nose, snort it back to the points and back your throat and spit it out. I'm sorry that's gross for your audience, but you got to get it up there and back. that adequately decontaminates the nose, then gargle with the rest of it, spit it out, finish up with some scope or listerine. Doing that after you return from a day out with contact with people, especially close contact in close rooms. I'm talking public restrooms, small conference rooms. You have to be in contact with someone for about three hours, honestly, in a small room with no air flow to get it. or go into a loaded room like a public restroom or tight places at small stores. That the bottom line that's where people get it from. Once it gets home, 85% of it spreads in the house. But using oral nasal viral cytotherapy is such a huge advance that any randomized trial by Chowdery and colleagues from Bangladesh, 303 patients randomized to this viral cytotherapy, which is all topical, no prescription drugs, nothing else needed versus a control group, which was just warm water. 303 patients in each group, it dramatically reduced the PCR positivity by day three. It knocked it down from 303 down to 24 patients still positive. Those who got the control, they're still all positive. And it markedly reduced by easily 75% chances of having progressive disease ending up the hospital or death. And it's enormously preventive. And now we learn, we can use hydrogen peroxide, dilute hydrogen peroxide with some loogals, iodine, and believe it or not, the dentists in the American Dental Association guidelines use for cytomegalovirus and upstream bar virus, gingivitis, they use sodium hypochloride. That's actually dilute bleach. Turns out it just takes a few drops of bleach in some household water. That's for the mouth. We typically don't use it in the rows around the eyes. But remember when President Trump mentioned bleach, and everybody had a big horse laugh on that, it turns out he just could not articulate. Someone was giving him the ADA recommendations for anti-viral therapy for them. The point is, a pillar number one should have been contagion control. It should have been focused on the nose of the mouth. We learned it early. We learned it late, but if we could have used any of that early, it would have helped. randomized trials of masks didn't work, hand sanitizers and spraying football stadiums. It was even in Europe, they were spraying the sidewalk, that doesn't work.

You know, every time I go on Fox News, Laura Ingraham always tees up some comment on masks and I just max masks are not my signature focus, right? In the reason being, if two people don't have the virus and they wear a mask, can it possibly do anything? Of course not. So in randomized trials of mass, the vast majority of people don't have the virus. So if you put masks on people, don't have the virus, it's not going to do anything. Mask expert, Mr. Stephen Petty, who I've presented with. He is a world expert on mask. He's an engineer with a typical mass that someone wears. Do you know much air moves around the mask? It's 18% moves around the mask. Of course it doesn't work masks only filter out about three microns of viruses when micron. So the point is, what do masks do? Do I wear masks? Sure. I'm a doctor. I go into the hospital. I'm in the cath lab. I'm close contact with people. dentists, hairdressers, people at close range wear mask, it may stop a big sneeze, it may stop partially some big emanation of anoculum, but we shouldn't have had the airtime and the public health focus on masks. I think if we would have taken all of that energy and put it on treatment protocols and update on drugs, We would have been better off, but that's contagion control. Pillar number two is early treatment. We've talked about that. Pillar number three, which is really important, is trying to improve the hospital treatments. And, you know, we should have had monthly updates from our federal officials and our agencies about where we are with early treatments. And for sure, our local medical schools should have all had early treatment updates once a month. Come on, the medical centers are facing their Super Bowl. Do you know today, Do you know today in America? We have 300 medical schools, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic. Do you know not a single hospital has their own unique protocol to treat COVID-19? They don't have a single original idea Do you know that none of those organizations show have ever treated a COVID patient to prevent hospitalization and death? I told Tucker Carl said, he almost fell out of his seat. I said, yeah, they don't have a single idea how to treat COVID-19 patients outside the hospital. Suddenly, our best and our brightest are out of intellectual ammo.

No, the mass psychosis clearly is focused on pillar number four. That was the last pillar that I presented to the Americans in November of 2020 in the U.S. Senate. This is before the vaccines came out. And that is vaccination. Listen, vaccination should play a role. I've taken all the vaccines. My kids have taken all the vaccines. I want to India took extra vaccines. So there's, you don't have any problem with vaccines. What has happened is, I want to say by April of 2020, it was clear that the vaccine development program was far more advanced than we ever could have imagined. How could we have actually figured out the neutralizing antibodies and have the sequence to the spike protein? And hell, all that ready to go. We have already figured out how to load it into messenger or adenoviral DNA. How do we actually get that to run? Remember, there are 24 of these platforms. They had all previously failed, except for a peterisant. A lot of people don't know this. There is a messenger RNA product. I can use that as a cardiologist called peterisant. It's a small interfering messenger RNA that we used to treat hemaloidosis. But the previous trials of gene transfer technology, which is what these are, were normally to replace a missing protein. So, for instance, I'm a cardiologist, I treat a condition called Fab Race Disease, it affects the heart. There was a messenger RNA program to basically replace the missing enzyme, alpha-galacticitis. But in this case, to take these platforms and say, you know what? These are ready to go. We're just going to insert the code for the spike protein, which is now what we've learned, is the lethal part of COVID-19. The ball of the virus, the nuclear caps of that beach ball, is relatively harmless. What causes all the damage is the spine or the spicule on the surface, everyone knows the cartoon of the virus. That's called the spike protein. 1200 amino acids, but it doesn't quite cause salation sites. It has some homology, by the way, to HIV. And so a lot of people don't know this, but the original, one of the original antigenic vaccines that was tested in Australia. Expose that HIV, Epitope, it turned everybody in the trial HIV positive, who took a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. These young people were outraged, and so this was on the internet. It was quickly suppressed, but if anybody wants to type this in right now, You can actually learn that one of the very first vaccines tried in Australia actually turned everybody HIV positive. They didn't have HIV, but there was a molecular trickery that was going on. Having said this, now we look back. We look at the books, popper, bragging, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Atlas, it's pretty clear that this was planned. And it was planned and the mass, the elements of the mass psychosis are clearly planned. In fact, the elements of the mass psychosis are in the Johns Hopkins planning document. They had that up on their website since 2017. Once the pandemic hit in March of 2020, they actually published it in the peer-reviewed literature. You can see how was all done. That's how the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health had the death count up on CNN and MSNBC in Fox as a scoreboard. Do you remember the scoreboard was a number of cases and deaths? How do they get that, Joe? Come on, I feel our deaths are taken every day. Do you know the average death certificate comes to me six weeks after the death? How are they getting these deaths instantaneous numbers picking up every day? It was extraordinary what Americans saw. So how were they doing them? To the state we don't know. To this day we don't know. All we know on the CDC website is the CDC website says that about 90% of the deaths that I've occurred with COVID-19 have been associated with significant comorbidities. Meaning, other major problems that were in the proximal pathway to death, the Italians had just recoded all of their deaths. They say 97% of the Italian deaths, meaning someone had heart failure, advanced lung disease, kidney disease, on dialysis, advanced cancer. A good example was colon, paul, colon, paul just died recently. He was in his 80s. He was fully vaccinated and he died of multiple myeloma, but he was also COVID positive. And so the question is, how much of the COVID did he die of and how much of the multiple myeloma, Larry King died the same way? We have to go far to find well known personalities where this happened. The point is that desks were coming in quickly, it may be the fact that the vast majority of them occurred in the hospital. So we didn't have to have this prolonged outpatient, you know, desertificate signing, and things were mainline from the hospital. We know President Trump's authorization for the testing became the way that the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health got the score board for positive tests. And that executive order said, all the laboratories and all the departments of public health doing testing will report positive tests to the center, the Johns Hopkins Center. And they did, that means Quest Lab Corp. Abbott, all of them started to have a flow of test. Interestingly, there was no reconciliation for duplicates. So if you would have went to one testing center and put your name as a Joe Rogan and you went to another testing center and said your name is, you know, Jose Rogan or something, you'd come in as two different tests. There was never any reconciliation. And we understood over time that the number of tests positive was in a sense padded. It was padded by duplicate tests. It was padded by this idea of asymptomatic testing. So one of the big discoveries in 2020 is that the virus is not spread asymptomatically. It's only spread from sick person to susceptible person. This is a very important two major papers, one by cow from China, one by made wall, nailed this down. Once we learned that asymptomatic testing wasn't happening, it became clear. The Swedes were right. Scott Atlas was right. The only thing we needed to do was just keep sick people at home. There were the only people we needed to quarantine. And while people could go do what they're going to do, somebody can't walk into a workplace with no symptoms and give the virus to somebody else. It doesn't happen.

Valid point. Valid point. The new thinking really has to be either we don't trust people and we asymptomatically test everybody. But you know the world health organization as of June 25th says no asymptomatic testing. The FDA has never cleared these tests for asymptomatic testing. The CDC doesn't give a green light to do this. A symptomatic testing, and people like you and me, we just walked in, we have asymptomatic testing, that if we get a positive, the chances that that positive as false positive is 97%.

Completely asymptomatic. And to make matters worse, so many of us have already had COVID-19, and now our CDC admits finally through a free and free information act, lead attorney, Erin Siri, press the CDC, and said, listen, you're saying you can get COVID twice. Show us a case. Show us a case. Press, press, press. Finally, the CDC Director came out and said, you know what, you can't get it twice. We've never had a case. But I have a friend that got it towards. What you have is you of a friend who thinks he had it twice. What happened is on one or more occasions, It's a false positive test. Or he actually had the dead virus that he's carrying forward. Somebody in my family circles had COVID-19 for sure had it got sick. That person tested positive intermittently 17 times.

Yeah, it wasn't a second case. This is what's happened. For sure? Yeah, there's about a hundred purported cases like this in the literature. I've looked at them all. What happens is, is we would need a rigorous definition of, put it this way. If you could get COVID-19 twice, We would have seen hundreds of millions of cases. Do you know how susceptible the elderly are? This would have swept through the nursing homes over and over again. We would have seen grandmothers on the ventilator 16 times. I'm telling you right now, you can't get it twice. The criteria are, and this reason why the CDC says it can't happen. The criteria would be that you have a positive PCR test at a low cycle threshold, less than 28. You're positive on the antigen amino asset test. So the nucleicaps that is there, and you do sequencing, and you can actually find the virus sequence there. Now, you do that on two occasions. You do that on one occasion, and someone's really sick, and has a characteristic signs and symptoms, and you do it again six months later, then you actually have the first case of recurrent infection in COVID-19. It doesn't, there's nothing that meets that rigor to make matters worse. The CDC is now admitted that the methodology they used for the PCR originally, the CDC methodology that was distributed to all the departments of community health and where the laboratory derived essays for the health systems in the early parts of the pandemic cannot distinguish between flu and on COVID-19. So invariably, someone had flu on occasion one and tested positive and was pretty sick and then they had COVID-19 the second time.

All roads having to the vaccine. All roads lead to the vaccine. Why has there been? Why is there no single Harvard protocol or Mayo Clinic protocol to treat COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization death? Why? We're two years into it. You mean Harvard won't treat a single patient at home to prevent a hospitalization. I said at the very beginning, I said there's two bad outcomes. There's hospitalization and death. That's it. If you could get through this at home and not end up in the hospital, the whole world could get through this. And you don't know not a single leader could articulate that goal of avoiding these hospitalizations. That's not a single leader. Trump couldn't say it. Biden couldn't say it. Markone couldn't say it. Nobody could actually state the problem. This is what's got Atlas the same. There is a global ineptitude where they can't even state what the problem is. If you get to, you go to any one of these CEOs of these health systems and say, what are you doing to prevent hospitalizations and deaths with COVID-19 as a composite outcome? They draw a blank.

Well, let's be fair to the vaccines. And I think this is important to mention. I was under oath testified in the US Senate and they're asked because very last question they asked our panel was, do you have any problems with the vaccines? Time frame November 19th, 2020. None of us said a word. Because all we had was press releases, Joe, we learned that the vaccines out of the clinical trials over a two month period had 90% vaccine efficacy. 90%. Now what that meant is if you had a clinical trial and you had 18,000 people in each group. that vaccine versus placebo, that when you look at the number of cases, there will be 100 cases of COVID in the control group, placebo group, and 10 cases in vaccine group. That's 90% vaccine efficacy, 100 versus 10, just giving sample numbers. That looked terrific, but interestingly, wait a minute, 18,000 in each group, what's the problem? That meant that less than 1% of people got COVID. Now, during that time frame, our labs were recording 5, 10, 15% COVID positive rates. How did the vaccine trials recruit people with a less than 1% chance of getting COVID? How did they find these people? Like, tell you, we were a vaccine clinical trial center. The most festivities people, doctors, other people. They were very careful. People upper middle class web actors who were just on WebEx. They were scared. They were in the vaccine clinical trials. They recruited people who never got challenged with COVID. Then everyone got exposed to COVID. So the vaccine clinical trials were not a good test run. If you got exposed to COVID, what would happen? So then the vaccines rolled out. And, you know, we had December, people started enrolled. The young doctors in the hospital took it. I watched it happen. Then they went to nursing home seniors, February, January, February. And we got to February. I was like, wait, where's the report? White House Task Force, or the NIH or CDC, or FDA, they need to come on TV and give us a report. How many people have been vaccinated? How many people have failed the vaccine and get hospitalized anyway? How many people have been injured with a vaccine or what's the side effects? No report. So we got to February and there was no report with the vaccines. It turns out that we actually never learned what the vaccines were doing on efficacy until much later. Now once we had August, September, and October, this is much later, we had data come in from a rears, from the spring, and we learned the following, a paper by self and colleagues from the CDC show said for protection against hospitalization. There was substantial protection against hospitalization. Now, it's confounded by the fact that healthy people take the vaccines, less healthy people don't take the vaccines, and the hospitalization is confounded by the fact of differential testing, meaning that once somebody takes a vaccine, the hospitals don't test them for COVID when they come in from gallbladder so they come in for other things. If someone doesn't take the vaccine, the hospital is testing them. And we know people get generate false positives. So the differential testing exaggerated the effect of the vaccines. But even with that exaggerated effect, I want to give your listeners a fair evaluation of efficacy. And what we know is that this refers to report that came in by self from MMWR, March through August of 2021, the vaccine efficacy for Moderna was 92% for Pfizer was 77% and Johnson and Johnson 68%. Now, that's biased. And it's loaded with a lot of bias. But I'm telling you, the vaccines did do something in terms of reducing hospitalization and death. Now, in the caveat, they say, listen, we didn't have data on Delta, and it looks like the vaccine efficacy dropped off after six months. Now, 1040 came in in JAMA, and this was published in the fall of this year. And they had an 85% protection overall against hospitalization. But again, don't forget the hospitalization could be influenced by this testing bias. But if we look at the data in Figure 3, which is dealing with in this paper, people who really had COVID and did they progress onto the mechanical ventilator or did they get worse. And the answer was, there was a 59% protection against getting worse, but mortality. In the 1040 papers, one of the best vaccine papers, mortality for those who took the vaccine and were hospitalized with COVID was 6.3%, and mortality for it unvaccinated. And they just took their chances with COVID in the hospital was 8.6%. And that P value was not statistically significant. So there was a mortality benefit, but it wasn't statistically significant. And so the last paper we have to point to is by cone and colleagues cone from the VA, 780,000 individuals, 780, 225 individuals in the VA. And they basically demonstrated that age over 65 for non-COVID-related deaths, the vaccine is associated with the reduction in non-COVID-related deaths, meaning people who take the vaccine are less likely to die because they, by selection bias, they had about a 1% overall absolute risk reduction in death. And then the COVID protection from death due to COVID, or death with COVID, was about a 1.5%. That's a prescription. That's a prescription. Absolute risk reduction. That's cone in colleagues age over 65. Now, importantly, what happened is in September, the vaccine efficacy fell off a cliff for all the vaccines in what happened in September was very important. September was about the six month anniversary of everybody because most everybody took the vaccines early and September was also the first month of fully shading in on Delta. We got to 99% delta which basically many papers show is resistant to the effect of the vaccines.

I'm presenting the data in terms of absolute risk reduction from the survival curves. There's a way of presenting it called relative risk reduction, which gives a much bigger number. But a lot of people want to know people on the street want to know listen. What's my chances? Dine of COVID. And I can just give you the number for U.S. Veterans. Let's have people listen to this. And this is after about four to six months of taking the vaccine. Those who are positive veterans over age 65 who are COVID positive and died with COVID-19, or let's flip it around to survival, Joe. to survive, COVID-19, the number was basically, when it be exact since fact checkers will be looking at this, was 87% for those who took the vaccine and for those who did not take the vaccine, the number was about 78%. So that number Yeah, that number was basically in the mid part, it's about 1.5%. And then it extends out at the end of the survival curves to about a 10% absolute difference.

The best paper to look at that is by Nordstrom and colleagues, Sweden 1.6 million pairs of vaccinated unvaccinated. The outcome is symptomatic COVID-19 infection, not hospitalization and death. Moderna starts out at a month at 92% vaccine efficacy. I'm sorry, Pfizer starts out at 92% vaccine efficacy and it drops off to 23% after six months. Moderna starts out at 96% and it drops down to 69%. And now we have 22 studies showing that the vaccine efficacy basically markedly diminishes after six months. That's the reason why all the authorities have agreed. We have to give boosters at six months. And the groups that do the worst and this has been published are those who are immunocompromised. So the immunocompromise people worry about them the most, but the bottom line is they get the least benefit of the vaccines.

Well, interesting, immunocompromised by the CDC wouldn't include the obese. So it includes people with blood disorders, chronic leukemia includes those transplant recipients. The most common category that your listeners would fall into is immunocompromiser. People on chronical cortical steroids. So people with severe dull density asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus. Oh, that would be immunocompromised. You're talking about general comorbidity categories like diabetes, obesity, heart and lung disease, kidney disease, chronic cancer. Those are basically risk factors for hospitalization and death with COVID. And there's a reason why, by the way, particularly obesity. You know what it is?

The virus, SARS-CoV-2, the virus, has got two very unique things as a viral syndrome. The first is this cytokine storm, or this hyper-immune activation. And that cytokine storm leads with the most unique cytokine. Inner looking six. We've never seen this before. Inner looking six is produced by human fat cells. So the virus triggers human fat cells to produce a ton of inner looking six which itself is damaging. And so those who are fat have a much greater depot and an ability to produce the cytokine storm. That's the reason why obesity is an exquisite risk factor for mortality is because of the unique cytokine signature of SARS-CoV-2. The other thing that's unique about the infection is blood clotting. We've never seen an infection that causes blood clotting. This blood clotting is in the final pathway to death with this virus because of the spike protein. The spike protein attaches to silag acid residues on the surface of red blood cells. It causes micro a right blood cell aggregation. It trips off the coagulation cascade in an interesting way and we can see this in patients where we see a D-dimer level that's elevated. And doctors learned to actually, as a signature of COVID-19, the D-dimer levels when they're elevated, it actually means this coagulation process is likely going on.

Well, you know, if we could have in a perfect world, if we addressed all four pillars of the pandemic response, If we did with Bangladesh did and just started actually doing the oral nasal hygiene approach. That's what they did right away. That's where the trials were done. They're almost down to zero COVID. 160 million people are on top of each other over there. They're down almost zero COVID because they've got the discipline down to when they go out in public settings. When you went out with that guy with a headache, when you came home, just do the oral nasal decontamination. You would have knocked down the viral particles enough where your body probably would have fought off the rest. And you don't get the syndrome. Do you know my patients right now when they're coming down with COVID, we actually blast with the dilute pulverone iodine in the nose in the mouth. We blast every four hours while awake and we knock down the viral load, particularly with Delta, Delta has 251 to a thousand times viral load in the nose. So it's replicating like mad and we can knock it down And reduced the amount of viral anoculum in the human body. I personally had COVID-19. It was in the fall of 2020. I didn't know about this. It baked in my nose a mouth for three days. And I sat there. I did nothing. I was scrambling for oral drugs. Why didn't I knock it down with some type of treatment in the nose? You know chronic sinusitis patients have been using netty pots or they've been using saline mixes. All we have to do is add a little peroxide or a little bit iodine to that and knock down the viral load. I could have had a much milder syndrome.

Well, the disagreement would be don't treat patients.

Think about it. Well, when I published the paper in the American Journal of Medicine, so I was the first person in the world to put a stake in the ground saying that we can treat COVID-19 at home and prevent hospitals.

I mean, so the letters of the editor came in, Joe. There was about six of them. They came in from Duke, from Manash, from I think McGill and Montreal from Europe, South America. They said, Dr. McColle, you can't treat COVID patients. It's like, what? They said, you can't treat. You don't have enough evidence. You can't do this. You could cause harm. And I, you know what my, I, I, at the, well, you know, Joe Alpert, his editor, Michael Joe medicine, he let this go on. Every letter came back and I said, overcome your fear. And let's break the grip of therapeutic nihilism. And let's start treating patients to prevent hospitalization and death. And in, in our circles, there is no discussion. You know, I was in the endowed lecture at Harvard two years ago. His fanfare, me and my wife all these pictures, everything's wonderful. Do you know not a single institution has invited me to lecture on the early treatment of COVID-19? Remember, Harvard doesn't treat people. Neither is Mayo Clinic. Neither is UCLA. Neither is a medical school here in Austin. They don't treat a single patient. They have nothing to offer. When did he or we all set up his treatment of program in Marseille? He put out camp, tents outside the medical center there. They try to shut them down. He goes to us and I'm going to treat patients because they're sick. They have, you know, Marse if you're a band there, it's all these retired older French citizens. You know, pretty well to do. They're down on their French Riviera. They were getting sick with COVID-19. He opened up an outpatient treatment center. And he started treating people and started gathering their data. They tried to shut them down. They took hydroxychloroquine. They made it over the counter. If he was, you know, there's been doctors who was a doctor arrested in South Africa for using IVMectin for crying out loud. You know, this is, there has been suppression. And where we know things really got up to is when we came to the monoclonal antibodies. These monoclonal antibodies, they really work. And let me tell you what, we've got three terrific ones now. We have Lily is back with a combination of Bammalithamab and Urchus of Amab, which is wonderful. We have Regeneron, which Trump received, which is a combination of M.D. and M.D. and Kerasifimab, and now GSK since May has such a river map. Such a river map is actually antibodies directed against a glycoprotein, so it's going to be basically resistant to any mutant strains. These antibodies in general, all the studies show. Given early, have at least a 50% if not an 85% reduction in hospitalization in death. I use them. I use them every day.

And you got and what Aaron Rogers got and what President Trump got is basically how I drew it up for America and the world. And you know that science is going the right way when people like myself and pure Cory and did hear me all to what have you were working independently. And we come up with the same conclusions. You know, Pierre and I did not re-circle did not actually come too much later. And that's exactly what you want to see. You want to see external validity. People working independently come in up with the same ideas.

The resistance has been in a sense an opacity to them, meaning I testified in the Texas Senate in March 2021. In right ahead of me was this wonderful doctor and she talked about her 90-year-old father who was saved by monoclonal antibodies. And I sat through six hours of self-congratatory testimony by all these department heads and cross-texts. They were talking about hand sanitizer and doing evaluations and vaccines. I got up there, and I told Quacquart, who's the chair of the committee. It was right here in Austin. I said, where are these monoclonal antibodies? Where are they? Where is the 1-800 numbers we can access these monoclonal antibodies? Where is the list of treatment centers? Where these monoclonal antibodies are? How can we don't have billboards up there? Telling the poor seniors where the monoclonal antibodies are? Do we stock these in nursing homes for people getting sick? Do we even know there is a heightened go-seek going out with these monoclonal antibodies? And I can tell you, in Florida, there's been a big push to use monoclonal antibodies, and they have the same problem. That there was this, in a sense, lack of government prioritization for the monoclonal antibodies. One's the last time you saw a feature in the news on these monoclonal antibodies. There's no word of them. They're wonderful products, Operation Warp Speed.

Well, they're produced in the same technology that we would produce humera and remicade. All these are, it's called the called fully humanized monoclonal antibodies. And so they're produced in a method where once there's a fully humanized mouse and the code for an antibody is created in the mouse, that gene is transferred into what's called the Chinese hamster ovary suspension. And that actually produces massive quantities of the antibody. That's how they're all produced. And, you know, anybody who's taken humor, anybody who's taken rapathas or probably went, they know what I'm talking about. And the point is, they're safe and effective. In medical economics in 2020, it was already disclosed in a table that we had already purchased 100 million doses of these. And we had on order 500 million doses. There are plenty of monoclonal antibodies. My point is, the government's almost on purpose in the local and federal state agencies are not featuring these. And I mean, I gave a lecture, a symposium for doctors in Namorello. And Dr. Symposium, Amorello Country Club, within last month, one doctor in the room was wearing a mask, none of us were wearing a mask. And I went over early treatment, I went over all the science we talked about today. And he goes, I'm the public health director here. And I want to tell you something that 85% of people dying of COVID-19 in our county are unvaccinated. I wanted to make that statement. And I said, listen, you're running the monoclonal antibody program here. How many of these deaths receive monoclonal antibodies? Here's why I don't know that. I said, listen, the vaccines aren't treatment. The vaccines aren't treatment. The monoclonal antibodies are treatment. To see the absurdity of this, this is the mass psychosis. He is completely and totally focused on the vaccine, yet he's got the most important tool right in front of him. What I said in the Texas Senate, I said the most important thing is the sick person right in front of you. That's it. At any given time, it's way less than 1% of people are sick with COVID-19. Focus on the sick person and then that's how we win the battle against COVID-19.

Yeah, it's a great argument. We'll see, you know, Mulla Pierre-Vir, which is the merc drug, which I think is going to be modestly effective. The, the registration trials finally came in about a 30% effect size, so a little less than hydroxy or Ivermactin. Ivermactin is the oral drug probably has the best efficacy of the three. And I think Moloperevier is going to be similar to Fevyperevier. We will have to see, but the point I'm making is a listen. The monoclonal antibodies were before the vaccines. There are emergency use authorized. There are more impressive results. You know, there's nothing to suggest that the vaccines can have anywhere near the treatment effect because so many people take the vaccines, don't get COVID.

They never get COVID. Right. You know, what is the VA data show you? 96% of people who take the vaccines never get COVID. So the vaccines are given to a large number of people who are never going to come in contact with it with the vaccine. Remember the registration trial?

Well, the CDC tells us 146 million people have already had it. Right. Have already had it. Now, those data run in a rears. We could be closer to 200 million people who have already had it.

No, there's three studies. Well, characterizing that three more that have waited and pre-print, showing harm. So, we've already covered the fact that recovery people don't get COVID a second time. And even if you argue that you think you can find a case here in their boy, it's one in seven billion people who can get COVID a second time. It's rare as hence teeth if it even happens. So the point is, if you can't get it a second time, you can only be exposed to harms. So the vaccines like any other medical treatment are not free of adverse effects.

You know, if there's three ways to prove your immunity, one is you have a concrete case of COVID-19. So you have the characteristic signs of symptoms. You were sick, positive PCR tests, preferably low cycle threshold, antigen test. I got COVID-19. I did the right thing. I was an FDA approved research. I took hydroxychloroquine and FDA approved research. And I tested positive for the PCR, but also the endogen. So I had, you know, COVID-19 is such an important diagnosis. Why do we confirm it? In HIV, we always use confirmatory tests and we don't write on one test alone. But in the case where it's well documented and you're sick, you're done. You're basically have permanent immunity at that point. Over 35, 135 studies support that now. Paul Alexander. permanent SARS-CoV-1, which is 90% similar to SARS-CoV-2, it's forever.

Everything we can tell, it's just like SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 is 17 years old, it's one and done, supported by 135 studies and this recent CDC. The CDC is a stakeholder in the vaccine program. They're running it with the FDA. They are. They are. The CDC and FDA are the sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program. If they, and they've been telling people recovered that they should take the vaccine because they could have it again. And that's the reason why when they were pressed to say, listen, find a case of someone who really had COVID-19 a second time. They couldn't find a case. That was the most revealing news that came out of the CDC in weeks. And it was great news for America.

All is based originally out of a concern of caution. Don't forget the vaccine recommendations originally. Yeah, originally. So listen, we're not sure if you can get it again. Take the vaccine, right? So as they were just, remember the vaccines originally were just offered as they should. The research, the vaccines are research. They are all investigational research. And so they get that nobody can encourage somebody to take a vaccine by the way. That violates the number of code. Can't do it. Research is neutral. As a doctor, I can never tell somebody they should take the COVID-19 vaccine. Why? Because same reason why I can't tell them say, you should be in my research study. You should take my research pill for diabetes. You know if I told them that you should be in my research study, I'd be sanctioned by the IRB, I'd be called by the FDA. That's out of bounds. We never give any pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal, or to sway in research, violates the November code. And we certainly wouldn't do it these vaccines because we don't have all the data yet.

Well, they're, I tell you right now, they're walking aligned on bioethics that they will be held accountable. You can't do that. You can't do that. No one can. No good doctor can. no good doctor. Now, getting back to vaccine safety, so the idea here is that we have to reconcile with vaccine safety. So the story is by January 22nd, we already had 182 deaths after the vaccine, January 22nd. for all the vaccines combined, 278 million shots. Given each year in the United States, kids adults, me and you, I took two last year, I took one this year, 270 million shots. The average number of deaths they would ever come into our central database, about 150. We'd be keeping the database for 20 years. Suddenly, we were at 182. And then it was a very important recognition that many of us had. Say, wait a minute, the CDC and FDA, they didn't have any safety review. They didn't have an external critical event committee. They didn't have a data safety monitoring committee, and they didn't have a human ethics board assigned to the program. It turns out we had the wrong agencies leading the program. The FDA is supposed to be the drug watch government organization. They don't lead clinical programs. The CDC is supposed to be the outbreak evaluation program. They don't lead clinical programs. So in fact, we actually had the wrong, we had the in a sense, the Fox guarding the chicken coop in a sense. We had the wrong people leading the programs and then we didn't have this independent safety committees. So there was nobody to stop the program in February. Normally, what happens is you get five deaths after any product is unexplained. Black box warning, may cause death. You get to 50 deaths. I don't care, 50 million, 60 million people take their drug. You get to 50 deaths is off the market and it gets reviewed for safety. I've been involved with these gel at a national level. We never let a drug go on and be associated with 50 deaths afterwards. We were at 182 and there was no safety review. Remember, I told you in February, I demanded, as a citizen, I demanded a report from the federal government. We needed a report and a press briefing on vaccine safety efficacy. We never got it. Can I pause you for a second there?

It shouldn't be scalable. Well, we had a hundred and eighty two at twenty seven million shots. One eighty two twenty seven million shots. Remember, the standard is one fifty at two hundred and seventy eight million shots. Right. So one fifty to two seventy eight. We had one eighty two to twenty seven.

So, so here's the idea. And this is the best example of somebody in my circles, Ronald March. Came by my house. And I got like you, the shape, you know, came by his biking. And it was wife said, we took the vaccines. We took the vaccines. We're safe. I said, listen, I'm kind of concerned by March. We're at 1,200 deaths, Joe. 1,200 deaths. I said, we're at 1,200 deaths. He goes, what are you talking about? We vaccinated 60 million people. 1,200 deaths, small price to pay. I continue the thought of my mind. Small price to pay for the Aryan race. That is the type of thinking that people comes into people's minds, driven out of fear, driven out of mass psychosis, that say, listen, I took the shot. I took a risk if it kills somebody else. I don't care.

That's exactly right. Now, fast forward. Where we are today? We're at 18,000 deaths.

This is VAERS vaccine, averse event reporting system. And we know in that system, these are certified by the CDC. So the red box report comes up once a week, it's certified by the CDC. That means all these events really happened because they come in as temporary VAERS numbers and then they vet them. So all of these really happened 18,000 deaths. There are 30,000 individuals who are permanently disabled after the vaccine. 250,000 are emergency room visits, office visits, other health care encounters related to the vaccine. We have two separate analyses showing. One from a black line from Queens University and London, one from Jessica Rose, from Canada, showing that 50% of these deaths occur within 48 hours of the shot. That 80% of the deaths occur within a week. They're very tightly related. We now know that the spike protein after these vaccines is produced in the body for an uncontrolled quantity and an uncontrolled duration of time. And because the antibodies to the spike protein after the vaccine are so high compared to the respiratory infection, we now infer that in fact, one gets a much larger dose of the spike protein after vaccination than the respiratory illness. And in some people, They invariably can't handle the spike protein exposure to human body who dies. McClacklin looked at this and found that the vast majority of death are in seniors. The very people we wanted to protect, so the deaths are occurring nursing home residents, people in the 80s, high 70s, and on-down. McClacklin took, he had 1,200 deaths at the time of the publication, took them and coded the deaths rigorously through the vignettes independent reviewers by causality. It wasn't actually due to the vaccine. And they ascertained that 86% of the time there was no other cause outside the vaccine, no other cause. 86%.

Well, you have a vignette and you kind of read the vignette. There's been separately nursing home studies. There's one by Kirkandall and colleagues that in nursing homes they had a hundred deaths after the vaccine in a nursing home in Scandinavia. So they reviewed the deaths. They came up with a number of closer to 40% were directly due to the vaccine. But what I'm saying is just like the respiratory infection takes out people who are TD or on the brink of survival, right? The vaccine does the same thing because the vaccine and the respiratory illness are one in the same in terms of the spike protein. We're giving the body back the spike protein in relatively high quantities and then a whole bunch of things would come out. So in VAERS to make sure your audience has this down. 18,000 deaths, that's everything reported in. We know from a paper by Meister and colleagues before COVID. that about 86% 85% of these reports are done by doctors, nurses, or other healthcare professionals, I think the vaccine caused the problem. And also the pharmaceutical manufacturers only about 14-15% are done by the patient themselves. We know from the data presented in the whistleblower. There's an FDA whistleblower lawsuit for deaths after the vaccine. That was filed by attorney Tom Rents using CMS data. So in CMS, we also know when they got the vaccine and who they died and it doesn't depend on self-reporting, right? Because CMS, the Center for Medicare Medicaid Services, they know when people come off the rolls. And there, the under-reporting number was established. So we know VAERS are under-reported by above four to five. So of those 18,000 deaths, 9,000 are domestic, 9,000 are X-US, but they report through our systems. So if we have 9,000 Americans truly have died after the vaccine, and the under-reporting number is above five. We're at 45,000 American lives lost, and that's what's in the FDA. That's the lawsuit against the FDA.

Right. So the Harvard study was with the HPV or human pebble on the virus vaccine. That's all it was about yeah and the idea is well parents and kids are getting it and what have you so it's probably grows there's probably gross under reporting there COVID people are on edge right and so what CMS the CMS data basically you know when someone got the shot and you know when they died And so we know what proportion of the U.S. population are CMS recipients, so by extrapolation can calculate what the real number is. So the real number at the time they filed the numbers round about 45,000 compared to what was in VAERS, that's how we can get to the under-reporting relationship of four to five. And we think that's a fair number. Four to five is probably a fair number.

Well, we learned July 29, Bruce Patterson, whose terrific molecular biologisties between Northwestern and Stanford showed for the first time with the respiratory infection, the S1 segment. of the spike protein is recoverable in human monocytes for up to 15 months after infection. So you had the infection, Joe, you got 15 months to clear that stuff out. Now maybe sooner. And hopefully lower exposure, you got monoclonal antibodies, other drugs, I got drugs. Hopefully we had less exposure to it. Our bodies can be free of the spike protein. The S1 segments, the outer segment. That's the one that actually dot docs with the S2 receptor. The S2 segments, the one closer to the ball, the virus. Now, I interviewed Bruce Patterson for the McCullery port on America, a lot of talk radio, the McCullery port. In what Bruce told me, and he had the data, is that the vaccinated individuals, as long as he can see after a vaccination, they have measurable spike protein S1 and S2 segments within the monocytes. We knew from a paper by Ogata and colleagues from Harvard showed that the free floating spike protein was in the plasma for an average two weeks after the vaccines, messenger RNA vaccines, but one person in their study, it was measurable in plasma for 29 days. So that spike protein imia in the plasma, the spike protein damages cells. It goes damages cells in the heart, the brain, damages blood vessels, causes blood clotting, We know the spike proteins dangerous. A paper by Ovalio shows that damage is heart muscle cells, pericides. The FDA has warnings on the vaccines for myocarditis or heart damage. So this is biologically cohesive that the vaccines could damage the human body and cause deaths. So the biological possibility is there. We know that it's a strong signal, so we have that. We know that it's internally consistent in the VAIR system, meaning there are other non-fatal events like heart attacks, blood clots, myocarditis. And now it's externally consistent. The same pattern is seen in the yellow card system and the UK through the MHRA, and it's also seen in the Utrest system in Europe. So what I've laid out for you is we've fulfilled what's called the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. That means it's it. I'm an epidemiologist by training. This is my line of work. I'm telling you for a large number of individuals the vaccine has caused death and these vaccine induced organ injury syndromes.

Is that an accurate statement? It's just, again, just like the respiratory infection. You know, we've had 146 million people who've had the respiratory infection less than 1% died.

What happened? Just like the respiratory infection. Remember, you and I had the respiratory infection. We're perfectly fine. We're sitting here talking 99% of people who got the respiratory infection are fine. 99% of people who got the vaccine are fine, so we're 200 million people who got the vaccines, and we have about 1 million people injured. So what's about is the same? They're identically the same. It's the same concept.

Just like with the respiratory infection, it's all about susceptibility. Remember, in the respiratory infection, it's the elderly. Those with medical problems, those with comorbidities, it's the same thing. So with the vaccine, it's the elderly. It's with comorbidities. For instance, blood clotting. Those who have inherited proclivity to blood clotting are going to be the ones who are likely to conform the fatal blood clots that happen with the vaccine. And invariably, there's going to be some determinants of who develops the mild carditis. We have a lead on this, by the way. The mild carditis is not equal in terms of gender. It's running about 80% poison and 20% growth. So must be some relationship.

In a paper from Finland, an important paper done before COVID-19, where they collected all the myocarditis cases in Finland, before COVID-19, they established kind of who got it and what was the rate. And in that paper, I believe the first authors to show What it showed was that there is an age gradient that occurs as one goes from you know age zero one two three four five very very little and then once it approaches puberty it goes up after age twelve it really goes up twelve to 17 or 18. And it runs about 80% boys, 90% boys. And importantly, the number per million, you could actually calculate the number per million per year, came out to four cases per million per year. So if you figure that we have, let's make it easy math, let's say we have 70 million kids in United States. And we do, you know, so 70 times four, that would be 280 kids at myocarditis. Some people say add on teenagers or other people, we could get to 7800 cases of myocarditis for you. Do you know what we're in in fares right now, Joe? 13,000 certified cases of myocarditis pericarditis. I know it because I've reported some. So some kids have come to my clinic. They've had hard information. We know in a paper by Tracy Hogue from UC Davis, thousands of cases of my carditis from VAERS and BSAF 86% of these kids have to be hospitalized. They're sick. They have chest pain. They have SD segment elevation on the EKG. Sky-hydroponents. The blood test for heart injury is about 10 to 100 fold that of a man having a heart attack. These are kids having significant heart damage, but a quarter have incipient heart failure as seen by Echo. I've seen them and follow up in my clinic. We have to use heart failure drugs. And very importantly, to treat my carditis, no physical activity. Physical activity can trigger sudden cardiac death, so no physical activity for sure. I've done this in my practice at the point of making Joe, is this CDC calls me and says, Dr. McCullough, we want to review this case with you and we go over it and they, you know, we agree after we go over the labs and we have you 13,000 certified cases of myocarditis paracorditis, that number should be no more than 600 on a background rate.

There is a montage of deaths on the soccer field, rugby field, particularly in Europe, overseas. It's interesting, not in the United States, but overseas, that's concerning. Each case is his own case. Did they take a vaccine? When did they take a vaccine? Could they have subclinical? Could they have taken a vaccine in the last six months? Could they have some subclinical symptoms? It's hard when you're a young athlete and you're sore all over, you know, the chest soreness may not be that demonstrable. And vigorous physical activity, particularly that start-stop, especially soccer, particularly would make me think. But you know, if that's the case, and it was my carditis, wouldn't it be seeing the MBA and NFL? And elsewhere, it raises this suspicion. The Maocarditis, there's strict warnings against this. Remember, FDA has on Moderna and Pfizer warnings on Maocarditis, Jessica Rose and I published in current problems of cardiology a paper from VAERS. And the upper tail of the myocarditis for men goes all the way up to age 50. So I'm telling you, I have somebody in my practice who's well above the teenage years who has myocarditis, we're going to see more and more because it's now known in the FDA agrees that the vaccines, in fact, do go to the heart. They get distributed all in the body. And in fact, the Koreans, we had the first fail case of myocarditis. I'm aware of what reported from Washington University in St. Louis in American who took the vaccine. And now the Koreans have reported one patient of a young lady who got put on ECMO. She survives. She got 10 minutes of CPR and got put on ex-capital membrane oxygenation. She survived, but sadly, another Korean man died. And did not topsy. His heart was loaded with inflammation. No, the heart swells. It gets to be about double the size and a matter of just a few days after taking the vaccine with my carditis as explosive after shot number two.

Yeah, my card I guess again, if we're at 400 to 800 cases in the United States per year and over the course of my career, I've seen one or two cases, spontaneous macarious before COVID and one or two. That's it, my whole career because it's rare obviously. And what would that be from? It would be the cause of it. The most fatal type is called giant cell myocarditis. It literally is idiopathic comes out of nowhere. We don't know what causes it. There's other forms, adenoviruses, parval viruses that can cause myocarditis. And these are typically treated just supportively. There was a randomized trial and actually Dallas Texas played a big role in it called the myocarditis treatment trial, MITT. And that did biopsies and showed routine cardiac biopsies. We're not useful. Outside of trying to diagnose a giant cell maccarditis. And then lastly, that routine cortical steroids weren't useful. Having said that when we try to treat patients, we end up using a culture scene, sometimes some other drugs. I want to get the right citations down. So the paper from Finland was by Arola and colleagues. They came with the estimate of four cases per million per year as a baseline. So that means in the United States, 400, 800 cases a year. We've already gotten to over 13,000 cases in the United States. And we've seen cases of a cowardice, by the way, reported the U.S. military, been reported from Israel, France, and elsewhere. The paper that showed it directly invades the heart, the spike protein that was by a volume and colleagues in the Perry sites. And very importantly, the prognosis is what you're asking about. The prognosis paper was published by Karsten Shopee. And that was in circulation research 2019. And what it showed is it showed that 13% of myocarditis is before COVID ends up with progressive heart failure and worsening. My fear is some of these kids who develop myocarditis will be in a 13% category where they have progressive left-and-shake-go dysfunction in heart failure.

The estimates are, and again, I'm applying data from other forms of myocarditis before COVID and COVID looks like a pretty severe form of it to be honest with you because it's putting 86% of the kids in the hospital. There's myocarditis that we actually don't hospitalized. We can treat myocarditis in myocarditis in the office. But these kids are sick enough to be hospitalized. I'm inferring that it's severe forms of it. This estimate from this paper would be 13% risk of in these kids of developing heart failure or needing things like ICDs, heart failure, oral drugs, later on cardiac transplant or cardiac death.

I said on national TV in June when the FDA just had 200 cases they reviewed FDA and CDC reviewed 200 FDA CDC said two things I think that were irresponsible. I'll call them out on it because I can and that is they said it's rare and they said it's mild and I was on national TV. In safety research, we never say the word rare. We say tip of the iceberg. This is probably just the beginning of what we're going to see. And it's not mild because even in June 90% were hospitalized. And sure enough, now we have 13,000 cases, 86% hospitalized. And you know, the Hoganel says shows that a young boy is more likely to be hospitalized with myocarditis than ever be hospitalized at COVID-19 in the respiratory illness.

You know, in this paper by to show B, this is good. This is like a medical grant rounds on Joe Rogan. I love it, Joe. So in this figure one from the to show B paper, 27% never deviated from normal hard function. So they were good all the way through. They were clinically hit my carditis. 26% were categorized as recovered. fully fully 34% improved but never got back up to completely normal and then 13% were impaired I mean the heart took a hit and they never recovered there's a gentleman who is he holds what is it the world's longest static breath hold is that what do you hold he holds he's done the 10 minute guy

Well, getting back to your question of, listen, 200 million people took the vaccine, you know, why are so many people fine? Right. I think my answer to that honestly, Joe, is that the body is a miraculous creation, and the body can fight off all kinds of things. So you put some foreign messenger RNA in there, and with synthetic analogue, caps, Tony Caragopolis, and I have published on this, by the way, the messenger RNA probably stays in the body for a few months. The spike protein, Patterson, is showing us last in the body at least 15 months. There's a paper by Banzel and colleague showing in the vaccinated that you have not only the S1 segment, but you have the S2 segments. You actually get both segments in the vaccinated persisting the body for a long time. Almost certainly beyond six months. that if someone took a shot one in shot two in January, February, and nothing has happened, I'm following my patients carefully, 70% of people in my practice took the vaccine. Again, a good doctor's don't encourage, don't discourage. It was purely elective because they're in vaccine research. Fine. No harm, no fall. But if we start vaccinating every six months, I think the spike protein never gets out of the body. It accumulates progressive accumulation of the spike protein is very worrisome for these progressive organ injuries syndromes.

15 months is on the long side. Let's be charitable and say it last in the body a year. That's what the Banzo paper and Bruce Patterson in his paper, and in his interview on my podcast, America, I'll talk radio, McColle Report. What, based on this leading work, I'm telling you as a doctor, I think the spike protein is in the human body after vaccination, at least a year. And so if you have a year to clear it out and you cleared out and nothing's happened, no harm, no fall, the vast majority of people in my practice did fine with the vaccines. Now I don't know if they ever came in contact with COVID or not, they did fine. It is my practice experience that when they do get COVID, that it's a milder form. It's easier to treat. Do I still give a monoclonal antibody? Sure, do they get eye for mectin? Yes, it's a predestone and all the other drugs and a quagal insure. Sadly, can vaccinated patients die of COVID-19? Sure. The CDC has told us the CDC in mid October had 41,000 full vaccine failure cases recorded by departments of public health. This is just spontaneous reporting. It's not the University of cases. And about a quarter of those were deaths. So the CDC has large numbers of people who have been fully vaccinated who died. It can happen. But it's our experience, and I shared with you the data, the vaccines do do something. They provide a modest protection against hospitalization and death. What we're getting to Joe is based on the safety profile we've described, and based on the efficacy, is it compelling enough to actually mandate it in people? Or is it something that ought to be a free choice?

Treatment of my carditis would be three to six months of no physical activity six months no physical activity at all right no no rigorous walks not being you know outside of daily activities you know going to class going home this in that but we don't want any you know running weightlifting soccer not Because we trigger cardiac death. And then for when the heart pumping function is reduced and we see this by echocardiography, MRI, we use what's called evidence-based beta blockers, carvalol, buisoprolone, long-actiometopalone. And then we use what's called Rasinhibitors, as Asinhibitors, and Jutensin receptor blockers are a new drug called intrasto. And that's what I use in myocarditis patients who have impaired pumping function because we're trying to prevent slippage and even worsened heart failure. And then for the plural paracardial symptoms, we use a drug called colchasing. And colchasing is a drug we actually use in the treatment of COVID-19 acute illness. Remember the acute illness is similar to the vaccine illnesses. They have so many similar, because it's the same spike protein. We use code to see in order to try to relieve some of the paracardial symptoms and the randomized trial suggesting that would help try to extinguish the inflammation in the heart.

Boy, that's kind of getting into this idea of moral hazard and social contract. So people ask me all the time. Yes. Doc, I'm going to lose my job. My job. I'm losing my job. If I don't take the vaccine, and I usually ask me, no, I ask him, what's the social contract? What do you get? If you take the vaccine, what do you get? Are you getting 20 years of employment? 10, 5, a year?

Are you getting three months? They said, I don't know. Nobody told me the social contract. I said, why don't you figure out the social contract before you take a spin with this vaccine? And people are trying to say, listen, can I have my cake you needed to? Can I take the vaccine and keep my job for some undeclared social contract? and take some antidote. Well, there are things that have been suggested on the website. Dr. Tess Lowry from the United Kingdom, who's one of the leaders in early treatment of COVID-19. She's one of the ones who did the Great Analysis on I for Macdon. Has started a program. And I think it's called World for Health, something along these lines. You'll find it on the internet. It's got a yellow and pink kind of montage color. And in there, there are some published approaches on web, not peer-reviewed, of course, there's no randomized trials. Of things one could do to reduce the inflammation, the thrombo genicity, and some of the organ injury syndromes. I'm leary of that approach because that's basically creating this moral hazard, meaning that it's okay to take the vaccine, and you can just take this anecdote to prevent complications. And so this moral hazard, by the way, came up in a radio interview, I had with Hugh Hewitt. And after Ty, I think it's one of the few difficult interviews I had. And Hugh Hewitt came on, and when he invited me on Joe, he said, you know, I'm bringing on Dr. McCullough. And I want to say before he gets on, he let us know. He let me know. He's an attorney. And he said, I'm pro vaccine. I think everybody should take the vaccine. And I think it was how we end the pandemic. But let me bring on this doctor. And then he asked me a question. He said, Dr. McCullum, He said, if somebody listens to you and they don't get COVID-19 and they don't take the vaccine and they get COVID-19 and they die. That's on you because they listen to you and they didn't take the vaccine. I said to you, I said if they listen to you and they take the vaccine, they've been pressured into vaccine research and if they take the vaccine and they're one of the thousands of people who dropped dead within a couple days of the vaccine, I said that's on you. I said, who's got the bigger moral hazard here? The bottom line is you can dodge COVID forever. There's people who have never gotten COVID. They're dodging COVID fine. In fact, you cannot take the vaccine and get treatment for COVID and survive it. I did. I got COVID before the vaccines. For me, it's over with. You got COVID after the vaccines. You got treatment. You got through it. So did Aaron Rogers. So did so many of us. The bottom line is there's no moral hazard for deferring on the vaccines because the vaccines are research and they're elective. And the vaccines are only to protect the individual. There's no data suggesting the vaccines protect others. This is very, very important. There are now studies. There is a recent study in the journal Lancet that is actually asked the question, do the vaccines actually protect others from getting COVID-19? Because that is really what's going on. There's people in my circles that have said, listen, take the vaccine. Protect other people. You don't do it for yourself. You do it for somebody. That was a later narrative though, right? I know, but we need later research to apply to the later narrative. Yeah. Haven't you heard follow the science? Yeah. Haven't you even heard that someone claims that they are science?

Now, science is a process and you're laughing, you and I are pretty humble here, but let me tell you, let's follow the science. So this paper is from Enica, Singa, Jagamam, and this is published from the ATACCC study investigator group in the Lancet. And this paper just landed in the Lancet, oh, I can't believe you got it, that's terrific. And you know what the storyline here is? 39% of this very careful case contact studies and it's up on Joe, it's on my call it here on my slides. 39% of transmission occurred from fully vaccinated to fully vaccinated individuals. I mean, it's pretty large number. Yeah. So the point is, we now have abundant evidence. We had the Barnstable County outbreak in Massachusetts that clearly showed, and the CDC told us, Barnstable County, they told us, congregate settings, people got COVID-19. It was Delta. Look at two thirds are fully vaccinated. We had the naval cruise ship, 3700 individuals, fully vaccinated. They passed Delta to each other. Then we had these papers here. We have one from Haver's CDC COVID net network. We have Fillmore from the VA. This is data shading into June. This is for Delta really kicked up. We had 23% of Americans in the hospital with who were vaccinated, but they had COVID-19. Remember, in June, remember that talking point that was issued. 99% of people in the hospital were unvaccinated.

That's propaganda. that's false information put out by those in position authority. There was one time, and I was on Laura Ingram, and they had a montage of everybody saying 99% unvaccinated. Even the governor of Florida said that, President United States said that. That was a false talking point that was issued and everybody said it. I think designed to encourage people to get vaccinated.

Well, there's been a randomized trial of case contacts. This is important. So, right in a mass trial, I believe using the regeneran product. And so what they did is they took seniors, like several seniors living together, one of them gets COVID-19 and the others are exposed in their high-risk. They took the exposed ones and they randomized them to getting subcutaneous injections of the monoclonal antibody versus placebo. And those who got the monoclonal antibodies in the setting of seniors close contact prevented the development of COVID-19. Now, when you got yours, did you get it? IV? Or did you get IV? Yeah. But so what happens is doctors have taken those findings and said, listen, it's parental administration. We're going to give a sub-Q injection. It's actually four injections that it's needed to give it. But I want the listeners to understand the monoclonal antibodies are safe, effective, proven. They clearly reduce symptoms. They reduce hospitalization death, and they are a product of operation warp speed. So not everything that happened with pandemic response was bad. This was a great development. Think about an anti-viral monoclonal antibody.

Like, what is that? And they're so arbitrary. From center to center, the arbitrariness of the rules, I've sent younger patients who have severe symptoms and in trouble for monoclonal antibodies they've been turned down. I've had other people go for monoclonal antibodies themselves and get them find no difficulty. Most of the time I have to say I've had a great experience. People got them monoclonal, but I have to tell you an anecdote. Somebody close in my religious circles, developed COVID-19. And he develops some severe respiratory symptoms. And I had gotten wind of vaccine discrimination, Joe. I had gotten wind of this. And this person was not vaccinated. I said, we're going to go for a monoclonal antibody infusion. It's late on a Saturday night. He goes for the monoclonal antibody infusion. And the doctor at the center in Dallas lords over him, arms folded, and says, have you been vaccinated? And this person looks up on me, he says, I refuse to answer that question. And the doctor looked at him, he said, okay, he goes, and the person who came and said, listen, I just want a monoclonal antibody infusion. Go home. He gets the monoclonal antibody infusion. And on the way out the door, he goes, hey doc, he goes, what if I would have answered that question if then told you I was vaccinated? He goes, oh, I would have given you Remdesivir. if he was vaccinated. Right. So the example is that's an example of perverse vaccine discrimination. So he would have been discriminated against getting a high quality therapy and getting a lower quality therapy. It doesn't make any sense.

No, it goes to show you the arbitrariness and the confusion that exists out there. that monoclonanibis are safe and effective. They work in vaccinate or unvaccinated. There was a previous thinking that if you are vaccinated, you should have already have antibodies to the virus. Therefore, we're going to use them. It does a very against the polymerase inhibitor, but it's just faulty thinking because vaccine break through cases, the virus is basically blown past the vaccine antibodies and why not give it a shot, regenerants two different antibodies. GS case and antibody against the glycoprotein. Why not use a more intelligent therapy. I can tell you, I've looked at all the data carefully, hands down the monoclonal antibodies blow away room, does it hear? Another thing that bothers me is do you know that when patients get admitted to the hospital, no monoclonal antibodies? Once they crossed that line, and I had a sad case in Fort Worth, it broke my heart, 38-year-old man. He was really sick, his wife is really sick. We scramble, we get medications, his wife gets the monoclonal antibodies and goes home, Joe, with other drugs, Okay, and she survives. They've got five kids. He's 38 years old. He's obese. He doesn't get the monoclonal antibodies. They say, you know what? You're too sick. We're gonna admit you. He never gets the monoclonal antibodies, Joe, and he dies in the hospital.

Yes. Or give him in the ER. If this was a matter of, why are you looking?

It doesn't make any sense. The emergency use authorization gives some general guidelines in an FAQ. The FAQ gives information, like says, you know, use as an inpatient in our patient. But it's not a law. I mean, if I can use bacterias in our patient, I can use bacterias in a patient. If I want to use regenerinas in our patient, I can doctors have authority over the FAQ. People are reading this FAQ like at some type of law. And as soon as they cross the line in the hospital, they can't get this life-saving therapy.

And the same reason why they choose not to use, I've remectin in the hospital. The same reason why they choose not to use.

I agree with that. I think there are just some unproven concerns. One concern is when the oxygen saturation is lower, if we give a monoclonal antibody, we could create some perfusion changes in the lungs and further worsen hypoxemia. That's never been shown. There have been other thoughts that if someone gets admitted to the hospital, they're too late for monoclonal antibodies. Remember, with the principle with therapy, is Joe. The later we start something, the less efficacy it is. So if you want to show failure of eye-remectin hydroxychloroquine and monoclonal antibodies, apply it very late. So, this idea that, well, they're outpatients, now I'm within the FAQ and they're likely to benefit fine. My point is, come on, this is a fatal condition, you know, just because we're on the edge of hospitalization. Why don't we give it in the ER and declare them outpatients and then still admit them? I would be okay with that. I've had another case I advised on. where desperate case, woman who was in a car accident, weeks earlier had rip fractures, impaired pulmonary function, gets serious COVID. We do everything we can as an outpatient show. All the drugs I've remacked in, we were using every vitamin, you know what you call the kitchen sink. That's what we're doing trying to save our life woman in 50s. Get so high-paxy, make-and-sick, or husband-sick, we toss in the towel, call 911. She goes to the hospital. I say, get monoclonal antibodies in the ER. Oh, they're going to admit or they're not going to do it. Fortunately, we got this as Tampa General Hospital. The person listening to this will know who they are. And they got to the other side of the admission, and I was relentless. And I said, Get in a monoclonal antibody trial. Thank the Lord. They got into the AstraZeneca monoclonal antibody trial. We don't know if they got placebo or monoclonals, but she survived. No intubation. And it was like, wow, it was that close. This is a little window of my life for the last two years. Do you know there's 500 doctors trying to treat the entire country like this? My phone, once I turn my phone out from this interview, Joe, I am going to be loaded with cases that I'll ear if I's on or try to help on all the way home. Why is it so few doctors? There is a grip of fear over the doctors originally. I think they were personally fearful of taking care of patients and they wanted someone to tell them what to do. Remember, doctors are not like Navy SEALS. Doctors are not like police officers or firemen or world wrestling champions. Doctors are kind of nerds. There's no chat box that says, I'm courageous. I'm willing to take some risks. They don't check those boxes. And I think there was a small number of doctors. I guess I'm one of them. Then I said, you know what? I'm gonna take some risks. I can do this. You know, I can put drugs at your pure core. You talk to him. Pure core is another guy. He didn't hesitate. I didn't hesitate. Jose, for room down in Houston, he runs a whole hospital. He doesn't hesitate. There's 500 of doctors out there that now are basically held out as heroes. You read Bobby Kennedy's book. We look like we're American heroes. It's only because we're treating patients as we should.

I had a conversation one time with a doctor and he goes, it was some conversation about treating patients early because well, you know, there's not enough evidence. There's not enough evidence. I need to wait. We need to wait for large randomized trials. Do you know, in the US Senate testimony, the minority witness multiple times told us. These doctors are trading with these drugs. There's not enough evidence. There's not enough evidence. And then I think Ron John to ask him because what do you think the best treatment is? Well, they should follow the guidelines and the guidelines say stay at home and wait until you really can't breathe anymore. And then you come to the hospital and you start treatment. And then I made a comment. I said, I want that to be written into the records of Senate testimony that that is a reckless recommendation for America. That it is reckless to recommend nothing in the setting of a fatal illness. Every serious fatal infection must be treated early. It's only gonna go worse. We actually have for other infections. We have time to the initial therapy as a benchmark of quality of care. Why would we let this virus rip the body for 14 days or longer? Can you imagine you had it? Can you imagine if you were 75 years old, you had heart and lung disease and you were sitting in your apartment? Your parents, your kids couldn't come over and look after you. Nobody could look after you and every day you're still in getting worse and worse and worse and worse until finally in your in isolation. Finally, at two weeks, you can't breathe anymore, and you toss in the towel. You call 911, you call your daughter, you call your son, you contaminate the virus everywhere, and then you get put in the hospital, you get slammed into isolation, you get put on room desert air, you get six milligrams of decadron, and then to make things absolutely the worst, you never see your loved ones getting you die. That's what's happened to 800,000 Americans.

That was in November of 2020, under sworn testimony. That numbers easily 85% now. Maybe it's 90% now. If we got what you got, if you got the sequence, multi-drug treatment, monoclonal antibodies, you called it the kitchen sink. So to why bottom line is it may be refined over time. The American Pfizer drug will bring them in. If other drugs come along, what will we find it? Listen, it's a process. I'm not saying any one of these drugs is a miracle drug. None of them are necessary nor sufficient to save a life. But the point is what drives hospitalization is uncontrollable symptoms. It's uncontrollable anxiety. Do you know an anxiety drug itself actually cuts off the risk of hospitalization? And that drug is flu voxamine. Now, flu voxamine takes an edge off the dismay. It may have some. It's an S&RI. And it's an older one. But it takes an edge off. You may have some other unique effects. I mean, I give credit to those who have advanced it. Credit to Steve Kirsch, who's funded the COVID-19 early treatment program. And he's now funding the vaccine injury program. Steve Kirsch, by the way, has a great offer out there for your listeners. I don't know if you know about this. No. His offer is anybody from any major academic medical center. or any government agency who will come to the table and have a fair discussion on vaccine safety and efficacy. He'll pay him $2 million.

Joe, no one's come forward. Really?

No about it. Is this how? When I read about it a few seconds ago. No, people know about it. He's made a lot of calls and emails. And the point is, people are under a chance with these vaccines. They actually know they're not safe and effective. They know it. They know when they took the vaccines, they took a risk. Now that's safety to, you know, the vaccine centers cleared out in mid-April. I drive past when every day to work. And there used to be police officers. They were waving people in there. I was slow down to try to get to the hospital because of vaccine traffic. And then it started to thin out and thin out and thin out. We got to mid-April. There was nobody there. You got to me and June. There's mothballs that dust on the cones. They put barriers up. The vaccine centers have been closed. For months, when the word got out, that people were dying after the vaccine, people stopped taking it. And there was an internet survey. An official on Twitter, I think. But it asked the question, do you know somebody who's died after the vaccine? Or somebody in your circles? answer 12% and I'm telling you 12% and people talk you can suppress it all you want to you know there's the trusted news initiative you can bring that up when it should bring the trusted news initiative the trusted news initiative was rolled out with the vaccines on December 10th it was rolled out the trusted news initiative announced by the British broadcasting company with all the other media here it is It all the partners that was all the major media and social media. Joe will work together to ensure legitimate concerns about vaccinations are heard whilst harmful disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks. Translation suppression on anything that would promote vaccine hesitancy and what would promote vaccine hesitancy. Early treatment, the hope of early treatment stay in the hospital. If people knew they had an option, they could defer on the vaccine and if they got COVID get treatment. That's that would lead to vaccine hesitancy. How about vaccine safety? How about giving you press briefing on deaths after the vaccine? Who are they happening with Moderna, Pfizer, J&J? Do we know? Is it happening? What's the profile of someone who dies after the vaccine? We have 19,000 cases. They could tell us, Joe, the point I'm making is if they won't be clean on vaccine safety data, we can never get to risk mitigation. We can't get a safer program unless they are transparent on vaccine safety. Thank you.

Well, maybe because I looked in the camera and gave a wink in one of the interviews, I think it was Tucker Carlson where I said, bring it on. And this is what I mean about this. This is a giant game of chicken. And the bottom line is the people who win are the people with the truth. The truth in the end is kryptonite to everything out there. But it's taking a toll on a lot of doctors. That truth is powerful. Can you bring up the graphic of a big public program? It's a picture of a crowd and I'm up in front. There's 500 doctors in my circles. Many of us are members of the Association of American Physician and Surges, or the frontline critical care consortium, or American frontline doctors, or the truth for health foundation. Look at this. This is an American reawakening. We are now going into cities and we'll have meetings, typically with lawmakers, several dozen lawmakers, and we'll go over the issues we've covered today, Joe. We go into doctors programs, we'll have a smaller program for doctors, and then we go into big public programs. We are getting 500 to 5000 people coming into venues and basically going over the size I got went today. This is like a medical grant rounds for the public. And when I tell people I said, where are the medical schools doing this? How can the medical schools aren't having public symposiums? We've had two years of COVID-19. Why are there no review of the data? Why are we not understanding vaccine safety and efficacy? And I say, listen, this is all about just understanding it, with the vaccines, for instance, you know, about 70-80% of Americans took the vaccine. I give the data. Do you know the most effective vaccine in terms of vaccine efficacy? You probably have concluded already. It's my turn. But, Dernah, because it's a hundred micrograms of messenger RNA. Pfizer's only 30 micrograms of Western Germany. It's more than three times a dose. Of course, it's a stronger vaccine. It's going to have more protection. The point is, the public in the end is the court of public opinion. And the public wants to know, and you know, on January 23rd in Washington, there is actually a march to defeat the mandates. There is a march out there, an American homecoming. Do you know it's my testimony and the testimony given by Jay Bhattachara? that Judge Dowdy in the sixth federal court in Louisiana used to overturn the rest of the Biden CMS mandates. And then within a few days, a whole wave of states trigger against the mandates. Why? Because we have the truth, and you're talking to one of the two doctors who made it happen for the country.

It's the most interesting thing. I've experienced sniping. What I mean, sniping, that means someone shooting at you, but you can't see who they are. I've never had anybody have the guts to sit across the table for me and have a conversation.

Bring them on and we'll have Steve Kirchett will split the $2 million, because I could use it for my legal fees. I can tell you right now, Steve Kirchett has been begging somebody to come and just have a discussion on vaccine efficacy. Let's go over VAERS. Let's go over the efficacy data. You know, is this enough of a hospitalization and death benefit to to consider taking it? So the false, there's been some false narratives that have gone on that in a sense are working to make this forever. Joe, if you and I want to have COVID, the rest of our lives, we would maintain these false narratives. And this is what they are, asymptomatic spread. You and I could give it to each other. Another false narrative. We can get it over and over again. That means you and I sitting here with no masks. We have no symptoms. We can give it to each other over and over again. Can you imagine these false narratives? And how about this? Take a vaccine. And then take another vaccine every six months. I got COVID. Where you can get it again. Take another vaccine. Well, it doesn't stop COVID. We'll take another vaccine. This is forever. So the false narratives that we have to, absolutely. If we want to get past the pandemic that have to go, is asymptomatic spread and asymptomatic testing. Get it out of here. The another one is natural immunity, robust, complete, and durable, never wear a mask, never take a vaccine, never take another test, you're done. It's one and done. I advise this Schermelachian government. They reached out to me and said, listen, we're in trouble. We're getting buried with COVID. This is several months ago. They said, we're running out of masks. What do we do? I say, get your COVID recovered. People out there and man the tents and start handing out the I vermectin hydroxychloroquine-based protocols. And that's what they did and they handled the pandemic. I've personally had the Alpha variant. I was in research. I was tested. I've come face to face with Delta. Somebody read how to my face. Their kids all over me. We actually made videos up. They're going to be in two different. I came back eight days later. You can't get it. You cannot get it. Do you know today that if someone's at a nursing home, there's somebody in my family in nursing home. They've had COVID-19. Do you know every time somebody in the nursing home gets COVID-19, Everybody gets put in a lockdown. That poor guy has been in solitary confinement six months out of the last year. He's already had COVID-19. He's already paid the price. He should have free reign of the nursing home. He should never have to wear a mask. Do you know when someone's COVID recovered and they can't go into the hospital and see their loved one dying of COVID in the ICU? They can't get COVID a second time. See, if we don't recognize natural immunity, this is really important. Do you know that Diana Harshberger from a Republican House representatives, Congresswoman, is basically proposing national legislation for recognizing natural immunity. It's very important. Natural immunity is far and away the most important thing we can.

Listen, that what the FDA used for the registration or trials was fine. If someone said they had COVID and they had supportive testing, that counts. That would be you. If someone never got the supportive test, but they thought they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they had it and they

Yeah, 15% of people who have symptomatic COVID, and she didn't have that, but 15% know symptomatic COVID, They don't hit the antibodies because the positive controls are set on sick in patients. And most people at home are not that sick. So a lot of people don't hit antibodies on the commercial tests, 15% don't. And if you don't get the T detect test, so the T detect test, go to T, hyphendetect.com, sign up, put all your information in. Once the lab director approves it, you go to lab corp, get your blood drawn, and that looks for a next generation sequencing in the chromosomes and T cells to see if you've actually had COVID-19.

Listen, the antibodies drop off in everybody. You know, there's a paper bite, Israel. Not in Jamie.

The papers in general suggest 15% of people don't hit the antibodies. I had COVID in October 2020. It was by PCR and antigen. I was in research. It was locked. It was rock stable. I had COVID at all the characteristics, signs and symptoms. My wife had it. In the research protocol, we had to follow up with Quest and get our antibodies done. My wife hit the antibodies, fine. I can't hit the antibodies. I go two more times. I can't hit the antibodies. I go with the hack. And I looked into it 15% of people, just literally if your treatment is so intensive at first, you actually don't get enough spike protein exposure to get such a high antibody tighter. And in fact, the natural infection in the antibody tighter is much softer than with the vaccines. Because with the vaccines, you get antibodies against one protein, the spike protein. With the natural infection, you get antibodies against 27 different proteins.

It's a little early to say that, but I wanted to give you an update. I don't want to recommend that to people. I'm just saying. Is that a bet possibility? There's a group in Boston that is absolutely knocking out of the park. It's a company called inference. And the lead author is a fancata Christian. And a paper just came out and preprinted. Oh, by the way, people need to know who's listening. Our peer-reviewed literature runs anywhere from six months to four years behind reality. So we actually published something into individual medicine, or we published something in these journals and my journal. I told you, I submitted something In June, the treatment paper, which was so important, it was printed online and August, it didn't appear in print until January. That's a typical publication cycle. In COVID-19, we all agreed that's too slow. So COVID-19 was fair game is called preprint, meaning that we get our data out early before it's gone through peer review, just so people can make decisions. And so if I kind of Christian two days ago, just put this out on an Omokron, Oma Cron is not a transformer. Very important. You're kids think it's a transformer. Paul Alexander on his post and Brownstone actually on the McCullery port. That's what I did. I had to put Optimus Prime on there. It's not a transformer Joe. It's actually the name. It's a name in the Greek alphabet. But it's interesting, Fancata Christian tells us there are 37 mutations in the spike protein. This blows off the socks off anything else. There are six deletions, one insertion, and the insertion, by the way, has some code that is almost for an epitope of another virus. There are 30 substitutions that are non-unique. You can find them in alpha beta, gamma and the other ones. And 16 of the 37 are called surge mutations. So something happened in the surge, when there was a lot of prevalence of disease and the virus was replicating, being passed to people in these surge times where the virus made a lot of mistakes. So I was called on TV last week for Fox News Laura Ingram. So Dr. McCullough, what's the update on an Omicram? I said, I think it looks like an evolutionary mistake. The initial, you can actually do modeling studies based on what we know the code in the code is known really quickly. Dr. Fantini, out of France, did modeling studies, let it under our networks. We found out quickly. The transmissibility to give you a perspective for the Wuhan wild type, the original virus, the transmissibility number, transmissibility index, was about two. The transmissibility of Delta, which has really been hard to treat, I think Delta's been way harder, what I had. You may have had delta. I had alpha. You may have had delta. You could have still had alpha. But transmissively, delta 10. You know what the transmissive will? Omicron is four. So for the first time we've actually gone down in transmissibility and probably because the spike protein and the receptor body domain, where it binds to the ACE2 receptors, so dysmorphic, that it actually can't invade the body as much. So that explains, you know, we haven't heard about these fulminate pulmonary syndromes. We haven't heard about these thrombone block. It's mild so far. Now, cross our fingers. People always ask me, is this a mild, milder variant? I remember what Delta is. Oh, is it milder as a women? What determines mild versus severe? Who gets early treatment? It's being milder severe is not a natural history variable. What early treatment is so transformational, that's what determines death or hospitalization.

Right, that's the key. So far, just we can just assume no early treatment. And so far, we're watching the reports carefully, but you're right, it looks like it's milder. And this could be, I don't think it's going to supplant Delta, because Delta is more transmissible and is very successful in the vaccinated. Now, Omicron has actually arisen from the vaccinated. You know, the kids that were passing the Botswana border, they were fully vaccinated. They're asymptomatic. But when you do, Oma Cron's interesting, when you run a PCR test, there's four primers. There's an S protein. There's the nucleicapsic protein, the envelope protein, and the plumeys. There's four. The spike protein is so mutated with Omakron, that actually primer drops out of the PCR patterns called S gene dropout. So this is the first time, based on, you know, depends on what PCR is done, that actually the PCR itself could give a hint at its delta. Otherwise, PCR is just telling you, you know, SARS-CoV-2 positive or negative, and then we have to wait for the public health labs to do the sequencing to tell us what variant it is. This case, the PCR test could give us a signature. So we'll know, with Omocrine will know, what I've predicted last week on national TV. And again, science is changing. A person is not science. I'm not science. I'm just a doctor interpreting data. And it's subject to being better informed with more data. But I'm predicting right now, I think it's going to be like ADA. in Lambda. Because this less transmissible in Delta, I think it'll carve out its own ecological niche. But there would be no reason for it to supplant Delta, unless it basically becomes almost like an infection of preference for the vaccinated.

If it's about making money, I'd almost prefer the vaccines get full FDA approval. You know, none of the vaccines are FDA approved. Even Pfizer is not FDA approved. That was a false talking point. Pfizer has a continuation of the EUA bio-entact, which is not in the United States. It's got a biological licensing agreement. That still means they have to do a lot to get approved. They have to actually have a approved package insert. They have to commit to post marketing studies on my carditis. They have to give safety warnings on pregnancy. They're not there yet. So no product is approved in the United States. There are all emergency use authorized. Everybody needs to know that another false talking point that Pfizer was approved on August 23rd when all the way up to the President of the United States, since when in history do we have false talking points issued out of FDA meetings that go up to the President of the United States? So they're not approved. Listen, everybody's entitled to make some money. What seems unfair about this? What seems unfair about this is the government paid for the development costs. The government pre-purchased the products. Even before they knew it was going to work or not work. And we know that with a new pharmaceutical company, a new product that was developed by a pharmaceutical company was a new company or existing company. We know a benchmark for a blackbuster drug would be a billion dollars a sales in its first year. That's a benchmark. And typically half of that billion is spent on the sales force. There's there's a investment of billions of dollars in R&D. Do you know what the vaccines that Pfizer in his first year hit 33 billion? And now I think next year 36 billion no development costs. The government no sales force because they don't have to sell the vaccine. They are just the suppliers to the government program.

What's dangerous? Is not fair balance. If we had FDA approved products, you see him on TV. What's the last time you saw a drug commercial? Let's say you have a drug that's for psoriasis. Oh, my psoriasis cleared up. Remember the people diving into pool and they don't have any psoriasis. They're beautiful skin. They're happy and they're dancing. Okay, you take a psoriasis drug show. It says warning. May cost tuberculosis. Get a TB test warning. There's fair balance. That's the U.S. Drug and Cosmetic Act. That's the Landmen Act. We actually have the truth and advertising act. There must be fair balance. Every product has a risk and a benefit. Every product has a risk and benefit. We can never propose a product to anybody in the United States without fair balance. You mentioned my carditis and I have to tell you since you had them on the show and since we're both graduates of the University of Michigan, which by the way is, you know, I think it's one of the better places in the United States. He wants to medical school there. I want to graduate school there. I went to UT Southwestern. I finished top of my class. I'm an Alpha Mago Alpha. The doctors who were in the Noah Hot Tree COVID-19 were no chump change. I went to New York City, Washington, and Seattle taught medicine residency program in the United States. I'm the most published person in my field in the world in the history. I have 51 publications in COVID-19. I have U.S. Senate testimony. A judge just relied on my testimony. It overturned the entire mandates for the whole country. I'm telling you, when I had interview a Tucker Carlson, he started getting worked up. He looked at the monitor. He goes, if you don't know who this doctor is, watch and look at him. He goes, he has authority. And he's right. I do have authority. Joe, and the reason why I'm telling you this is because what's going on here is that we have a situation where we have people in positions of authority. The person you had on here in a position of authority was Sanjay Gupta. And I'm going to pick up him a little bit because Sanjay Gupta came on Sesame Street and I want to show the graphic if I don't have it. He came on Sesame Street and what he did is with another CNN correspondent. He was actually seducing children into taking the vaccine.

Okay, seducing I am telling you, no good doctor would do that because there must be risk and benefits. Did he tell the kids in the parents there's FDA warnings that this can cause hard inflammation? Did the other CNN correspondent who's a mother? Did she show even show an ounce of concern? What's got Atlas uses in his book shows. He used the term he uses is off the rails. We're off the rails. People in positions of authority are doing bad things. Trying to seduce children in a taking a vaccine that has official FDA warnings on it without giving fair balance. That's malfeasance. That's wrong doing by people in position of authority.

I don't care if it's one case of myocarditis. Right. If it could happen, the idea that we would not present something in a fair balanced manner on TV. There should never be an official on TV that says the vaccines are safe and effective. Take them. Listen, they have to be proven. Show us the safety and show us the efficacy and let people make a choice. One cannot conclude that they're safe and effective without showing any data. I would never do that.

It's the only time it's ever been presented to the American people. You know, I could tell you what, we've got a history in this. If you go back to this. If you go back to, this is Sanjay Gupta, and the CNN correspondent. There was no fair balance there. I got nauseated when I saw that.

Well, remember, he paraded a talking point that our head of the National Aogen Immunology Branch paraded. They said that there was no data for I for Macdon. They said it was a horse dewormer. Now either they knew or they should have known the 63 supportive studies or the over 30 randomized trials. Hey, that's a court of law either you knew or you should have known a position in a person in a position of 30 either new or or should have known. Scott Atlas says they're incompetent. They don't know. That's what he says. Bring him on. He'll tell you. He thinks they're incompetent. I'm not so sure. It's either they knew or they should have known. Either one of those is good. Either he knows or he should have known. Either one is not good. Which one is it? Ask him. Ask him. Give him a call. Which one is it? Do you know about the myocarditis risks?

Right, that's the Hogan analysis, not disputed by the FDA. You know, there's another point, this is a nuance, I want to get this out. There is a, I want to say basically misleading paper in the New England Journal of Medicine. That says that if one gets COVID, the respiratory illness, they're more likely to get myocarditis than take a vaccine. Okay. I can tell you, I'm a doctor, I've taken care of hundreds and hundreds of COVID patients. I've advised on thousands. By the way, none of the media doctors outside of myself, Steve Smith, and maybe there's one other on there. I know George Farid maybe. I think there's three doctors that America has seen on TV. That's actually seen in COVID patient and actually treated COVID patient. That's it. You know, the minority witnessed in the Senate testimony, Ron Johnson waited about two hours into the testimony. After he was advising on America on how to handle COVID-19, he's a doctor. Have you ever seen a COVID patient? He retreated a patient. And he said, no, I haven't. He says, I have no more questions. I'm telling you, there is almost a fraudulent scheme to this. This knowing the General Medicine paper said. It said that myocarditis more likely in those with COVID-19 than with a vaccine. What we know is that someone's sick enough to be in the hospital who's in the ICU can have a small rise in Japan and that's the blood test indicating cardiac injury. But half the people in the ICU have that anyway from pneumococcal pneumonia, staff, substance, et cetera. It's just part of being in the ICU, okay? The Chinese never called that myocarditis. They called that cardiac injury with COVID. The Chinese were right. It's just a proponent elevation. That's it. It's largely in consequentials. We don't do anything about it. That's very different than the explosive chest pain, early heart failure, EKG, and massive proponent rises we see. with vaccine and do smile carditis. They are two completely separate syndromes. What the Nunagir and medicine papers, they just use the numbers. If you have lots of adults being admitted to the ICU, you're going to have big numbers of people who have a trivial rise in Japan and it's in consequential. That's different than myocarditis after the vaccine, which has a lower occurrence rate.

I think it's a lipid nanoparticles and and the lipid nanoparticles very important. Remember, parts of the body are more lipophilic. They take up lipids better than others. The heart is interesting. It relies on about 80% of its fuel is fatty acids versus 20% sugar. The skeletal muscles are just the opposite. They're 80% sugar or 20% fatty acids. So, we know that the lipid nanoparticles are almost certainly taken up in the heart preferentially. They're definitely taken up in the ovaries and the corpus looting the ovaries taken up in the adrenals. We know that they go to the brain. There's been enough autopsy studies of freshly vaccinated people. You can see what gets seated. The vaccine goes everywhere in the body within a matter of hours. The vaccine seeds up in the brain and to the heart, the adrenos, the ovaries, elsewhere. And I think the vaccine actually loads the heart probably with more spike protein that one would ambiently get with the respiratory infection.

censorship that has suppressed for two years, information on safe and effective early treatment. And censorship on vaccine safety has led to large numbers of deaths, hospitalizations, and permanent disability. Joe, there is no bigger public health crisis than the impact of censorship in COVID-19.

You can follow me on America Out Loud Talk Radio, the McCuller Report at Yeshua Weekly Report to the country.