Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - The Dr Peter McCullough & John Leake Interview | Battling The Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex Conspiracy Podcasts

Episode Date: February 8, 2023

We had the honor to sit down with THE Dr. Peter McCullough and author John Leake to discuss the trying times of the Covid 19 pandemic. We dive deep into the battle that Dr Peter McCullough faced while trying to save more lives with early treatment. We also discuss the New World Order, World Economic Forum, and Dr McCullough's thoughts on the fuure of the healthcare industry under control of the bio-pharmaceutical complex. All of this and more on this episode of The Dr Peter McCullough & John Leake Interview | Battling The Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex Conspiracy Podcasts

Hello and welcome to Investigate Earth Podcast. I'm your host Chad alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. Oh, thanks, babe. That's so sweet for you to call me beautiful every time. That's so sweet. But anyways, guys, we are so glad you're here. This is an amazing podcast. I really can't wait for you to hear it.

It's awesome. Yes. You know, that song that you guys are hearing right now in our background, the song we actually open with is called For the Good by Joy Spring. And what that song kind of, I guess, depicts is that, no matter what, like if you believe in God, God is going to work out things for the good, right? I mean, you know, we constantly hear about battling good and evil, but God will work it out for the good. And what God does, I think, and sometimes in these situations, he sends crusaders, right?

And so this episode that we have tonight for you guys has the Dr. Peter McCola. We have the amazing author John Leake, which John Leake and Dr. Peter McCullough collaborated on this book The Courage to Face COVID-19, preventing hospitalization and death while battling the bio-pharmaceutical complex. I think these guys and people like this are crusaders. I think these people are going to be looked at in history as the people that did everything they possibly could to save as many people as possible. And I think the type of people that they are battling, people like us are battling with information, the people that are constantly trying to get the truth out there.

We're trying to be crusaders. We're trying to go against evil. We're trying to go against the system, the globalists, the New World Order. These are the things. And by the way, guys, we talk about the New World Order. We talk about the globalists. We talk about everything with Dr. Peter McCullough.

We talk about it with John Leek. And I think they did a wonderful job of summon everything up and putting the book into perspective, but not just the book. They said so many things that we have been talking about for four years. Yeah, and it just feels good to know.

Yeah, like when we're listening to them, I'm nodding my head. Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, exactly. You know, you hear it, but then you hear it from the doctor. Yeah. You're like, wow, this is amazing. Absolutely. I mean, sitting across from them in this hotel or this hotel conference room in

Atlanta, which, by the way, our hotel rooms are side by side. So John actually called me. It was very interesting because we don't travel doing podcasts very often. We literally took our entire setup, like all of our good equipment, right, that we have now. We took everything to Atlanta. This is the first time we actually took the good equipment to anywhere. And so we had all this stuff. And we got there at like 1 o'clock.

And I knew that Dr. McCola and John had a speaking engagement that evening, right? They had a very tight schedule. Yeah. They had a tight schedule. But this interview was actually supposed to happen at 3. 3.30 p.m. We got there at about one, and I was like, okay, we can chill for a couple hours and just kind of relax and get ready. And then John said, hey, look, I hate this. He called me. I said, I hate to do this, but like, we have a schedule thing. And they've moved up our speaking time

and all this. And he said, is there any way we could maybe do this like now? I was like, oh my God. And I'm in the background, I'm like, tell them to give us 20 minutes, just 20 minutes. So we did 20 minutes. And the funny thing was their hotel room was like $300 just to have the conference room, right? And so in the hotel we were saying that was expensive as well, or, you know, decently expensive. And we were going to pay it regardless. Like if we had to pay it, we would.

Right. But the hotel lobby or the concierge or whatever, she was like, no, just look. I mean, yes, we do charge, but go ahead. use it. So we were, I was in there literally setting up this entire podcast. Sherry was as well. She was, and then Sherry had coffee and water and all this stuff. We did this in 20 minutes about. Yeah, it was awesome. And we were done and then, uh, Dr. McCola and John were walking in the lobby. And I'm like, just done with all this. And still don't 100% know if this is going to work completely. Right. But it did. And we're like, just breathe. But it was one of the best interviews we've ever had on this podcast. It was

freaking amazing. Yeah, I mean, the only interview that is better or not better, or as good is Nathan, I mean, with Clear. And by the way, I want to thank Nathan again. Nathan Jones from Clear. He set this interview up. Nathan is, like I said, he's a friend

of ours now. But one of the things they talk about Dr. McCola and John, especially Dr. McCola, they talk about the biopharmaceutical complex. You know, there was a time in this interview where I said they, right? And we on this podcast always try to, you know, define who they is, right?

Because a lot of people can say they. And I actually like the fact, even though I did say they to Dr. McCola. Right, right. But I like the fact that Dr. McCullough was like, well, whoa, whoa, wait. We got to get this straight. Who is they? Let's explain it. Right.

But it was very interesting. And so there have been. many doctors and many companies and people that have faced the backlash of the United States government, but not just the United States government. I think it's far beyond that. I think there have been people and companies and doctors and people in power, the people that really should be in power, the cardiologists like Dr. McCullough, one of the most sighted cardiologists in the world. And you're about to hear in a minute, like some of his credentials and why he is, as good as he is, But you have companies like Clear, we talked about in the last podcast with Clear that they were being sued by the FTC.

They are in a battle with the government, essentially. And it's even like when I started taking Clear the nasal spray. And I went to Amazon. I said, well, I'm just going to look up the reviews. I want to see if this stuff and see what people say about it. And I saw a lot of people are like, oh, this prevented me from getting COVID. This did this. This did this.

My husband had it. It did this. whatever. And it was like a month later, I looked again and there was no, there was literally no anything about COVID. And it was because Amazon took them all off. And honestly, it's because of that keyword COVID. Yeah. Anyone that puts COVID on a podcast, a news feed, anything in a review. If you write, oh, it prevents COVID, it's going to be removed right away. Yeah. Just like this podcast, there's going to be a blue thing at the top of this. It's going to say, here's COVID-19 information. That actually started with Joe Rogan. And I actually believe after the Dr. McCullough interview

with Joe Rogan is when it started. Is when Spotify implemented the blue notification above the podcast, right? So Dr. McCullough is now on our podcast. So hopefully there's not some new rule that is implemented because Dr. McCullough's on our thing. But anytime someone of that stature speaks truth. Yeah, exactly. But getting back to clear real quick, we were talking to them. yesterday and we're talking about all the emails we're receiving like how people are saying this is saving my life this is great blah blah blah he's like well we don't have any of these reviews so one thing i thought about is maybe we can just get you guys to go directly to his website instead of messaging us so here yeah here's what i'll say um yeah for for that reason and and

because this and we told nathan we're like you know we don't see any of those good interviews and or not interviews, but reviews. And if you guys have had an experience with Clear and it helped you in whatever way, especially during the pandemic, just reach out to Clear because Clear did get us this interview with Dr. McCola. And when I say Clear, I mean Nathan Jones.

Right. And the least we can do, and that's what I told Nathan, I said, if we can get some reviews your way, just through email that maybe you can use or at least you can see kind of how it helped people, Right. I mean, that's, that's, that's really what they want to see.

They want to see how much it helped the public and the people. And I'm talking about the people that message us directly. Yeah, there were tons of people, tons and tons and tons of people that emailed us. Yeah, so guys, if you do have a review of the clear, please send it to sales at clear.com. That is, sales at x-l-e-r.com. Just send your review there if you've had an experience with it. I just wanted to, I wanted to touch base and let you guys know that. So listen, we're not going to talk forever.

We want to get right into the interview. This is, I think, an amazing interview. I think Dr. McCola could not have done better. He's a genius. Just sitting across the table from him, you can tell that. You can tell John is a genius as well. They're both very well-spoken. And I'm really looking forward to anything they do in a future.

I'm willing to support them. And hopefully, they will come back and we can dig deeper into a lot of other issues. That we need to get to. Yeah, we just couldn't get to everything. I mean, we had, this interview is about an hour and 40 minutes. But, you know, still, we could talk for hours and hours and hours about this. And so, guys, go download the book, The Courage to Face COVID-19. I promise you, especially our audience, you guys will love it.

And it really does truly put into perspective what was really going on for doctors like Peter McCullough, but not just doctor. They discuss doctors around the world. They discuss what was really going on. And really, yeah. And really, it's still going on today. Two years later. It's still going on.

This is still a battle that's going on today. Yeah, and I do think there's going to be another pandemic. You know, Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum in 2023, just said that, you know, hey, there's going to be new virus. He basically was a warning at the World Economic Forum. there's going to be a new virus. This is going to happen. We might as well prepare for it.

How are we going to deal with it? And these are things that we got to bring Peter back on and some of these people. But listen, Peter and John, thank you so much for your time. It was an amazing interview. Guys, enjoy this interview. And let us know your thoughts on it. If you like it, give us a good review. If you like it, go tell Dr. McCola how much you like the interview here.

But here you go. All right, guys. are here with John Leek and Dr. Peter McCullough. Welcome, guys. Thank you. Thanks for having it. Thank you. Not a problem. So obviously we have covered so much about what you have done, Dr. Peter McCola. And we just got done reading the book, The Courage to Face COVID-19, which was wonderfully written by you, John. And I think you guys did an amazing job kind of collaborating on this. But I guess my first question I want to ask, number one, is, You're a true crime writer, right?

Yes. And you got with Dr. McCola. What kind of led you to this book in particular? You know, is it something along the lines of you saw it as somewhat, some of the other things you've talked about as far as crime? Yeah, I mean, I've written a couple of true crime books that have forensic medical elements. actually a lot of attempts to solve crime involve forensic pathologists trying to figure out, you know, are there injuries, was their poisoning, you know, when did the fatal wound happen, that kind of thing. And so I had hung out with forensic doctors and pathologists and criminalists. And I kind of threw that experience and then a longstanding just curiosity about medical history. I had developed a feel for how crime can be solved or understood or ascertained through medical knowledge.

And when the first reporting of SARS-CoV-2 was coming out of Milan, Italy, that's when I began to first notice the reports. I've lived in Italy. I really love Italy. And I thought, wow, this just looks just horrible. I mean, Milan appears to just be under fire with this thing. So I started paying very close attention. And a lot of what our mainstream media reporting was telling us, the easiest way to put it is it just didn't add up. It became evident quite quickly that it was a risk stratified illness. It posed a much greater risk to the elderly.

And yet, we were all being told, you know, we're going to have to lock down. children can't go to school. That was the first thing. And then the second thing, I just thought it was fascinating that from the outset, there was never any the slightest consideration given or discussion about treatment. Yeah. It was just this kind of assumption from the outset, it's untreatable. Like nothing we can do. And I thought, well, how do you know that it's not treated? I mean, how do our public health agencies already know that there's nothing in the pharmacopoeia that could treat this? How do we know? And so that was the second question that I asked.

And I realized, okay, this looks messy. This looks like we're in for something very strange going on. And I knew I needed a medical authority, a scientific medical authority. Yeah. So that was my starting point. Okay. And so Dr. McCullough, tell us, I'm sure a lot of people know who you are there, listen to us. Tell us a little bit about your background, how you kind of got in the spotlight during COVID. How did that all happen? I'm a practicing internist and cardiologist in Dallas, Texas, and in my fourth decade of clinical practice, I hold degrees from Baylor University in the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, University of Michigan, and Southern Methodist University. And, you know, when SARS-CoV-2 came in, I was already well along in my academic career. I had focused on the interface between heart and kidney disease. And one of the metrics we use for a doctor as a doctor gains accomplishment in a field

are the number of listings in the National Library of Medicine and Citations, as a general role, 25 listings or 25 important papers published research projects would grant someone a professor of medicine at that status. I was already a professor of medicine at two institutions, and I had amassed at the time over 650 peer-reviewed papers in the National Library of Medicine. I was the most published person in my field in the world in history. I had an advanced research team at a major health system in Dallas, had three PhDs, six other assistants,

and we were in the business of doing big projects, big grants, projects, working with the National Institutes of Health, pharmaceutical companies, but it was a chronic disease. It was at a slower pace. And when SARS-Co-2 hit, you know, there was panic in the health system. There was panic. And we organized into task forces. And I was on a research task force that we're going to, you know, do the best we can to

research what to do. And fortunately, I was able to secure a relatively large grant early. I worked with the FDA over a weekend in March to get investigation on a drug application. It was all hands on deck. The nurses were terrified in doing SARS-CoV-2 testing. I remember going through all this that were going to be testing people and you're going to be okay. And there was just incredible fear that people themselves were going to get this illness. And I saw doctors, you know, show tremendous fear.

They were terrified. They shut down their clinics. The doctors were scrambling to get masks. There was even a squabble over masks. The nurses rode up one of the doctors underneath me. He's hogging the masks. He's using too many masks. And I'll never forget that.

But in the first few weeks of the pandemic, I never thought a crime would be committed. Yeah, and that's something that the book, I think, outlines very well. It kind of, when we first started reading the book, it was a lot, you know, there's a lot of things that we've covered on this podcast for since the beginning of the pandemic. And which one of them was Event 201, when COVID first came out and we found this somehow, I was like, holy cow, they have pretty much emulated this before it even happened. Like it was exact same thing. The only thing it was different was it happened in South America, and it came from a pig instead of a bat at the time, which we know it's not a bat. But I was like, holy cow, they're already planning this. Yeah, what we discovered is that for at least 20 years, probably closer to 30, there has been this planning, this, I think for a long time, the thinking in people who are interested in emerging infectious diseases, for a long time the thought was it'll be another influenza pandemic like 1918. Like 1918 happened.

And if you read the history of the 1918 influence of pandemic, you see there were a lot of unusual things going on in the world at the time, the most unusual being the first world war with all these men in the trenches. But nevertheless, the thought was another pandemic flu is coming. It's just a matter of time. You know, you can look at papers that were issued to medical examiners in New York City, high-density population places, planning on. some horrible thing coming, killing 5,000 children a day, this sort of planning for influenza.

In 2003, when the first SARS came out of China, suddenly you see this shift of interest from lethal influenza, virulent influenza, to, hey, no, wait a minute, maybe we've got a new pathogen in town now, a lethal coronavirus. So that first SARS and 03 generated a tremendous amount of interest within this pandemic planning community. So since then, you see it's coming, it's coming. Yeah. It's just a matter, it's not a matter of if, it's just a matter of when. So what I think it's just human nature, people start thinking, well, it's definitely, coming, we have to start planning for it. And if we're going to plan for it, like, what would be the best way to tackle it? And of course, at the back of people's mind is also the most profitable way,

the most, the preferred way of certain individuals. What is something that we could do to prepare for the next one that all of mankind will, we can strongly recommend or even mandate receive? So the kind of devil thing that goes on here is we want to prepare for the emergence of, for example, a human transmissible coronavirus that comes out of a bat reservoir. That becomes this thing that everyone starts planning for. Well, in order to plan for that, we need to start testing a vaccine for that. But in order to test the vaccine, we need to start already with a bat coronavirus that's transmissible to humans. Well, how do we do that? Well, let's see if we can make one in the lab.

So already you see this kind of headed down a very alarming, questionable path. There's a professor at Rutgers University. And I'm sorry that his name is suddenly slipping me. that's too bad. Rutgers University epidemiologist, virologist, and he has been loudly sounding the alarm for years. Wow. That you guys say you're planning for something to emerge from nature,

but you're jumping the gun on the evolutionary shift of this thing. It's more likely going to be something that you guys create that escapes from a lab. Exactly. So, this whole planning, creating viruses in order to use in order to test vaccines, this complex has developed and really, I think, culminated in 2019. But there was an aspiration that was developing in the years before this. And one can go on the Gates Foundation website or even any of the Global Vaccine Alliance

and all of these consortia, even the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation, CEPI, which was formed out of the Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum. And the aspiration, though, has been out there on the Internet and in these organizations to vaccinate the entire world. Vaccinate the entire world. Now, in 2017, 2018, the Gates' discussion was influenza. but we want to vaccinate the entire world against influenza. This idea of abolishing a disease, abolishing disease.

There can be smallpox and we can abolish it or polio. It's almost like a vision of grandeur. Yeah. Well, let me ask you this. Talking about Event 201 and other events like this, one of the things that really stood out to us, which is something we covered on the podcast was just how. how well thought out their planning was.

I mean, even on their own website, it showed videos of exactly how they were going to use media to get the message across and then also silence people. And they were even using words for the first time, such as misinformation and disinformation. And they were already thinking, too, about people were not going to want the vaccination. And how are we going to get them to be vaccinated?

But one of the things, too, I believe they somewhat talked about, and I think maybe this is part of your, what was part of your problem. I know that you were a big pusher of hydroxychloroquine because of the, you know, the studies that you had seen and everything you'd seen around the world. It's mentioned in your book. Do you think the planning early on in Event 201, the medical system, the healthcare system, already had a way to combat people like you that was going for early treatment. They wanted the early treatment side of things. What do you think about that?

Well, first off, let's set a few definitions. So you've used the word they several times. It always bugs me when people say they. Why don't we outline they? Well, we do that in our book. We call it the biopharmaceutical complex. And the biopharmaceutical complex is like a syndicate. And we think at the top is the World Economic Forum,

right there with the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, Welcome Trust, Gates Foundation, you know, some of the largest sources of money in the world. SEPI, I've already introduced. There's also all the vaccine implementers, Gavi, Unitate, go-between organizations. One of them is the EcoHealth Alliance going between institutions, the regulatory and public health institutions. So in the United States, it would be the CDC, NIH, and FDA. people can call the alphabet agencies.

UK, it's the National Health Service and the MHRA, Australia. It's the TGA. We have the European Medicine agencies, EMA. So we have these entities, and there appears to be an annual, semi-annual planning meetings, and they occur in Davos, Switzerland. the World Economic Forum. They also seem to get together at like G20 in some of these other meetings. And if you look at who's showing up at Davos, you know, why are there some congressmen showing up there?

Why are almost every billionaire of note showing up there? And then these interchange between people at these agencies and those at the individual country agencies, notably in Australia, there's been some interchange between people within the syndicate, if you will, and taking positions in local country-level regulatory agencies. But these entities, for a long time as a syndicate, the biopharmaceutical complex as a syndicate, has had an aspiration on mass vaccination. and the preparation at the individual country level with legislation to get ready for this has been extraordinary.

One of the things that really struck my eye is the prep act. And the prep act was exactly that. It was preparing for this. It was preparing for epidemics with legislation. And on their website in 2005, you can actually see the pull-down menu of what they're getting ready for. SARS-CoV-2, anthrax, smallpox, radiation, a nuclear holocaust, if you will, insecticide poisoning of populations. And in this prep act, are these extraordinary, when the declaration is made that, yeah, it's happening,

this paves the way legislatively for tremendous executive powers, powers that we, we've never seen before in terms used that we've never seen used in civilian life, countermeasures. There's the emergency countermeasures. You know, these are military terms and they're serious, and they mean tremendous flows of money fast, and nobody is held accountable. So one of the best reference books I want the listeners to have in their shelf alongside ours is Peter Braygan, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, the prey. Now, it is, in a sense, a reference book, and the back half of it gives the timeline

for what happened here. It goes back, and it's roughly a 20-year timeline. And in it is 36 pandemic preparedness planning events. There can actually be events. You mentioned one of them. There's 36 of them. 25 of them generate written documents. You can review them. There's one from Johns Hopkins in 2017 called the Spars pandemic. These are tabletop exercises of what would happen. Somebody paid for these exercises. They generated

meeting minutes. The proceedings from the Johns Hopkins one outlines the fact that there will be a proposed drug, a treatment. And there'll be great confusion regarding it and how the planners of this will capitalize on the

confusion to drive mass vaccination. How they'll actually get the president of the United States to be a driver of mass vaccination, how this will all happen. But in all of these events, six of them are filmed. You mentioned an event 201. The answer in each and every one of these planning events is how do we get the entire population mass vaccinated? And then conversely, how do we set up an antagonist? And the antagonist is vaccine hesitancy. How do we abolish vaccine hesitancy, vaccine resistance? It's a bad thing.

And so all of this is set up from the very beginning with the iron-clad, unassailable assumption that the vaccines are safe and they're effective and they're going to work and we're going to take them. That's the scary part. And what was kind of the thing with the book, you know, as far as you guys wrote this book and a lot of this that you talked about. that you talk about. But what would you say was the most important reason why you guys got together to write this? Because, I mean, we talk a lot about conspiracy. We talk about the World Economic Forum quite often. We talk about kind of their involvement in all this.

But how much of this do you see that was already pre-planned? And what was the importance of you guys writing this book to get across? The one thing I noticed pretty quickly, I became curious almost immediately mid-March. is there anything that is known to have some effect, not necessarily like a silver bullet. We're not talking about penicillin against staphiloccus or something. But is there something that could help that could reduce the symptoms, any kind of treatment? And I had personal reasons for this. I was at home visiting and I was living with my mother, who's 74 years old.

and I saw that it was an elevated risk for older people. So I thought, I want to be prepared when mom gets it because she's very social and she loves hanging out with kids and grandkids and stuff. So I figured mom is going to get it. So what do I do if she does? And I just noticed almost immediately, oh, no, no, there's nothing. There's no treatment. You know, all we can do is wait for a vaccine. And our Dallas County judge, who's in quirk of Dallas County law,

or Texas state law is basically the emergency management authority in Dallas County. He was already giving these presentations in early May of 2020, this color-coded graph. And on the green light end of it was a new normal intel vaccine. So it's like, we'll never get back to the old normal. but maybe maybe things could kind of have a semblance of normalcy but then when we get the vaccine

you could see this conditioning was already happening when we get the vaccine boy then we can really go back to the life that we knew and we enjoyed you know in our book trailer we have some factual clips of videos early on

and there's one that struck me it was April 1st of 20th We were about a month into this, right? Really where there were real cases. And it was Bill Gates. And he said, the world will not go back to normal until every single person in the world takes a vaccine. And he just said it just as if the aspiration of getting something injected into every single human being on the planet had been in his mind for decades. Isn't that strange, though?

We talk about the vaccination. And kind of what you were talking about earlier, reminds me a lot about the military industrial complex, right? I mean, you create a problem or you have a problem, and then you use something to fix it, which is weapons and weapons of war and all these companies that come around. But what is the purpose they want everyone vaccinated? Because you said it was first flu.

Now it's, you know, COVID. Well, if I could just an intervening or an interjecting point, So what I discovered pretty quickly is there is already literature out there on the most notable paper was one in 2005 that was published by ranking CDC epidemiologist, virologist here in Atlanta. and the thing that really jumped out was the unequivocal assertion that hydroxychloroquine shows potent antiviral activity against SARS. There was a series of papers about this. And so I thought, well, there's something that might help. We don't know 100%.

But, I mean, when do we know anything? 100%. So, you know, I thought that's something I'll keep my eyes open for. And then we start seeing some observational studies, a guy in France named Professor D.D.D.A. Raoul and Marseille. And he's a very highly regarded, I think he's the most cited microbiologist in Europe. And he has a lot of experience with what's called drug repurposing. So you have an agent, a molecule that's been around for a long time. You use it to treat other conditions. Because the human body, because nature, because viruses and the body, the way the body responds to them to pathogens, there's similar channels and mechanisms of action.

So what DDA Raoul always pointed out is, you know, you just try. You just try a molecule. It's been around for a long time. You know the safety profile. Hundreds of millions of people. have taken this stuff without a problem. Let's just try it. What's the harm and trying? The immediate response of the French, the Parisian medical establishment was, no, you can't try it. Can't try it? You're telling, you're telling one of the great eminences of medicine in France.

He's a member of the lesion d'Anur, the lesion of honor. You're telling him, you're some bureaucrat in Paris, and you're saying he can't try this. on his patients who don't have time to wait for a vaccine because they're sick now. Yeah. They're coming to his hospital in Marseille now. So it doesn't do any good to say, well, come back in six months. Yeah. You know, Marseille is important because it's on the French Riviera.

And it is loaded with elderly retired people. That's what they do. They go to places like Nice and Marseille. and in cities like that. And so Rial and Dr. Milan and Langeet, he's got some younger, very capable colleagues, they actually opened up a field hospital, actually an outside hospital with tents.

And he said, listen, these drugs and combination make a lot of sense. He's the most published microbiologist in the world. And they start treating patients. And they start carefully recording what's going on. they do the right thing. And they start publishing their papers. And it keeps mounting them out. The very first paper came out in pre-print.

And, you know, again, it showed a signal of benefit. It got into the hands of former President Trump. And everybody remembers the day when Trump came out and said, listen, this looks like it could be a chance here. And then people forget what happened after that. The studies kept going and going and going. Realt and his team. now have studies of 10,000 people, elderly citizens of France.

And it's astonishing. When we get to a certain level of physician experience with the drug, observing the outcomes, remember with SARS-CoV-2, the two important outcomes are hospitalization and death. You avoid those two. If you get sick and you get through it at home, it's a win. And that was always my thought. Hospitalization and death are the outcomes of interest. We have to stop hospitalizations and deaths.

It was interesting how those in the biopharmacidical complex took a different view. Their goal wasn't to reduce hospitalization and death. Their goal was actually to abolish the illness. It was called COVID-Zero policies. And COVID-Zero policies said, you locked down and don't you dare even move because if you get even one virion near you, it's a loss for us. And this was carried on and carried on. You know, the Australians got to a point said,

don't you dare leave five kilometers of your house, as if the virus was going to stop at a five-kilometer imaginary fence. I mean, the thinking that occurred, the Chinese, the Chinese got to the point, years into this, they're locking down their citizens within high-rise towers. and welding the doors shut, like they're going to stop every little viral particle. And the Chinese are wearing hazmat suits, tackling each other, trying to stuff nasal PCRs up each other's nose. I mean, it just looks, you know, for my podcast on America Outlaw Talk Radio, I have a chance to, I go worldwide because it's a worldwide problem. I interviewed Eugenia Barentos down in El Salvador, South America, tiny little things.

You can't weigh more than 111 pounds. And she's fearless, and she's treated probably tens of thousands of people this time, trained others. And I asked her one time. I said, and she saw them. She drew a blood test on them. She examined their lungs. I said, do you ever wear a mask? She said, never.

I said, what do you think about the Chinese wearing hazmat suits? You've never worn a mask. It's the same illness. You've treated tens of thousands of people. And the Chinese are wearing hazmatis. It's the same illness. And it's a mind-blowing reality to see the different ways in which people in different countries responded to this. That's very true.

I think it was even in India, if I'm not mistaken, they had made care packages for people before they even got COVID. And if they did, they had like pre, I think it was Ivermectum and some other things, zinc. Right. So many places I've been to in Goa, India, which is, it's known for. for cinnamon and spice. And it's interesting. It's predominantly Christian in Goa, India. And it was originally a Portuguese colony.

And in Goa, India, the states are all very different. But you're right, they just put together little baggies. And they had ivermectin in it. They had an anihistamine. They had aspirin. And they had a brief course of steroids. In Honduras, I work with the Hondurans, and we published this together. about just having a home treatment pack.

It doesn't have to give it to everybody because the idea is, listen, most people get through it relatively easily. Most people think that the proportion of the population that needed some form of treatment was about 25% based on age and other medical problems. And what I said, listen, if someone's having trouble breathing at baseline with harder lung disease, heart failure, emphysema, they're going to get in trouble with COVID, right? Someone who's so obese that they get short of breath when they walk down the hall, they're going to get in trouble with COVID. These types of common sense observations, there was a large paper published by the Iranians that used a hydroxychloroquine-based approach.

But it's 30,000 patients. 30,000 patients. I mean, these are large, large experiences. They said, listen, we kind of sifted through this about 25% of our population needed treatment. and, you know, with a fair comparator group, all of them showed what's called a treatment effect or an effect size. Those are synonyms. And what that means is that the medicines applied really do do something. Yeah. It's not bias. It's not that healthier people took the medicines and unhealthy people didn't. And so therefore, there's something else accounting for the results that, in fact, it was a real treatment effect.

And so there's an important paper out there by a doctor from University of Texas down in the Rio Grande Valley, Dr. Elef Terrios Gucalakis. And he mathematically applied equations to what we were learning in early treatment. It really focused on Rialt's work. You focused on work that I was doing on Vladimir Zelenko, Brian Proctor in Texas, Farid and Tyson, South Sesto, California. And he was watching this develop over time, and he was interested in, at one point in time, was it absolutely conclusive that these guys working with a variety of different treatments were truly reducing the risk of hospitalization and death? And the conclusion of his paper was in December of 2020. It was what he calls clear and convincing, clear and convincing. And anybody listening to this who have taken statistics, that means a P value.

less than 0.01. That means the chances of that conclusion occurring by chance alone would be zero, it would be basically less than 1%. Yeah. And so we knew by December of 2020, we had it. We had it. When I went on the floor of the U.S. Senate on November 19th, 2020, a percent of my protocol, I said, listen, we've got this. We already have a home treatment guide with the Association of American Physician and Surgeons in October of 2020. had the Home Treatment Guide, Frontline Critical Care Consortium, had a separate treatment sheet. They were focusing on inpatients, but they had migrated to outpatients.

I mean, we already had formal, organizational, vetted documents and approaches that were ready to go. And if our government officials, let's say the White House Task Force gave me a call and said, Dr. McCullough, we're getting buried in hospitalizations and deaths. You know, it's the fall of 2020. we're six months at it. Do you have anything for us? I'd say, listen, AAPS home treatment guide, let's get this out to every doctor, let's get it out to every urgent care, and let's make sure people have the protocol. And these are cheap, generic drugs, the supply is infinite, and let's just make sure we've got the drug supply, and we're ready to go. We apply risk

ratification, not everyone's going to need treatment, but let's apply the principles. And here we are three years into it. And do you know today, in this town, in Georgia, if someone gets COVID- and they go to an urgent care down the road, they're going to literally get a test result handed to them and say, here you go, here's your test result. That's the extent of what's going to happen. And no treatment still. Well, there are some modest treatments now.

So, for instance, you know, government-provided treatments. One is Pax-lovid, the combination of Nerve-Intralomere and Ritone, which is an older protease inhibitor. But it's purely just an antiviral, doesn't it? handle inflammation, doesn't handle the blood clotting. I've never thought the drug can stand on this loan alone. In May of 2022, the CDC puts out a health warning against this drug and says, wait a minute, this can prolong the illness cause rebound. There were a paper published in JAMA saying, wait a minute, this drug has 40 different drug interaction, serious ones. So that drug's already

wounded. And now we have Molnapiravir, which is a single drug that is a preliminary race inhibitor and papers coming out showing, wait a minute, this could cause cancer. This is mutagenic. And then a large clinical trial, actually one of the few large, high quality, randomized trials, I believe is in excess of 45,000 people employed. Zero benefit. Completely fell flat. So the only things our government really can say that you can pick up at the pharmacy that you could treat, our government is completely out of ammo. And there are a couple of things that I think it's important for your listeners to just think about. This idea that was presented to the world that you can't use a known drug.

It's been around for decades. You can't use it with SARS-CoV-2 unless you already know 100% of its efficacy. There really aren't that many drugs that we know a priori. It's for sure 100. So there already that threw up a bunch of red flags for me. Like, why are you guys requiring someone's sick? Let me give you a different scenario. You're on a sailing yacht in high seas. Someone falls overboard. And it kind of looks, it's not looking good. Like it's big seas. boats moving really fast away from the guy. He can't swim. It's, you know, 50 degree water. And you think, well, that guy's a goner. I mean, he's probably, do you say, do we throw the life ring to the guy?

Or do we just kind of think to ourselves, he's, life ring probably isn't going to help him. He's probably a goner. Let's just not throw the life frame. We don't do that in life. You have to be. someone that has an agenda in order to withhold access to old and safe drugs. There's a lady in Bath, England named Teslari, a safe old drug. Look, when the American soldiers were posted into the Pacific during the Second World War, all of them were given a daily or at least weekly ration of chloroquine. It's an anti-malarial. Of considerably higher toxicity than hydroxychloroquine, adding the hydroxy molecule to chloroquine

actually reduced the toxicity. The British Empire, well the Portuguese Empire for that matter, it only really started making headway in places like Africa and India. after the discovery that quinine has a potent anti-malarial. Quine, people sit around drinking gen and tonics. You know, that's the image from British Imperial days. The tonic water has quinine in it. Yeah, so I thought it was fascinating that the two molecules that are proposed

that seem to have some antiviral activity are hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin is the other one. Both of them are naturally occurring molecules. Hydroxychloroquine derives from quinine, which is an old anti-malarial drug. Ivermectin, the basic molecule for that was discovered by a Japanese researcher named Satoshi Amora. The WHO itself characterized Ivermectin as a wonder drug. not only it's veterinarian application, but for humans as well, particularly against African river blindness. So, you know, all you have to do is read the most basic literature on this to know instantly all this talk about these being dangerous molecules.

It's a lie. Why, why are they lying about this? Why? So that was a major starting point for my inquiry. Absolutely. I had a very interesting experience. I'm one of the most senior publishing doctors in the world. I know how to publish papers. And I was the editor of two major journals.

And I just know how this works. And what I saw in the first few months, I was following the literature. I said, no one is publishing a proposal to treat the illness. There's nothing. I thought surely Harvard would get it, or Duke, or Yale, or University of Chicago. No one, the first few months, it's almost like it was shock and all. We're just getting pummeled by this. And there was talk about what to do in the hospital, but the whole idea, wait a minute, the hospital is a bad outcome.

So we need to, you know, we need to go before the hospital. That should be incontrovertible. We must do something before the hospital. hospital in order to prevent a hospitalization. Right? So the hospital is too late. And, you know, the original reports is that 90% of people went on the ventilator died. So it was clear when we saw all these news briefings, oh, we're going to have general

motors make ventilators. We're going to have a ship go up to New York Harbor with ventilators on it. The ventilators are going to save everybody. No, the Italians were telling us, listen, the ventilator is too late. We have to do something before the ventilator. So I saw this gap, and I had developed a relationship with Dr. Harvey Rish, an epidemiologist at Yale. Now, he was a cancer epidemiologist, and like me, he had, in a sense, retrained his research focus now on SARS-CoV-2. I'm not an infectious disease doctor, neither is he.

But our infectious disease doctors were completely subscribed to inpatient care. I saw it at my medical center. You couldn't even talk to these guys about how to deal with an outpatient. They were absolutely getting buried with inpatient consultations. So I put together this paper. I was the first author, Harvey's senior author. And we had a lot of people in between, a very high-level infectious disease doctors from Detroit, who I had worked with during my training. We had experts from Emory University, Italians from the Corrigal Network. They had already faced COVID-19. And I was going to go

straight to the New England Journal with this. I said, this is it. The New England Journal needs to publish the first treatment approach to this illness. And then when I saw, saw two fraudulent papers published, frankly fraudulent papers, purportedly from a company called Surgesphere, and with Harvard professors, one of which I knew, my friend, I know him, that they had published papers, one in the Lancet that claimed that they had data on tens of thousands of people hospitalized. This is pretty early in 2020. were treated with hydroxychloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine made them slightly worse. It wasn't actually an overstated result. It was just not beneficial, slightly worse. Conclusions,

hydroxychloroquine shouldn't be used in this Lancet paper. Another one was published, not on hydroxychloroquine, but on another drug, a blood pressure drug called an ACE inhibitor. And it was an ACE inhibitor. The idea is this drug uses the ACE enzyme, and it may be ACE inhibitors, ACE inhibitors potentially could upregulate the entry, the ACE2 surface receptor. And that was published in the journal medicine, same group. And then within about two weeks, these were retracted from two of the most prestigious journals for basically being fraudulent.

Wow. So they had gone through the peer-reviewed process. They had two or more reviewers. They had associate editors. They had editorial board meeting. They submitted supplemental information. Wait a minute. It's got this far through the process and then they're retracted for basically the company doesn't exist and the data are fake.

They're actually fake data. And I had a sense that something was wrong because the mean age in both of these papers of those purportedly in the data set they were hospitalized. We're in the 40s. We weren't hospitalizing people in the 40s. So I said, listen, I can't go to New England Journal of medicine with my paper. We had finally had everybody sign off on it. So I called Joe Alpert, who's a. a friend of mine, he's the editor of the American

General Medicine, and Joe was in Phoenix. Phoenix was just having its first, I'm sorry, Joe is in Tucson. They were just having the first cases of Hispanic population with COVID and so they had some deaths. And I said, Joe, I said, I got the first paper that gives an approach to treating it.

And he said, oh, send it in and we'll give it an evaluation. And I got it back and I had the comments and I responded to the comments. And I think I submitted it on July 1st of 2020. And this is a pretty quick process. By the way, from the time we submit a paper to the time is fully published, it can be two to four years. I mean, this is not, papers do not move quickly.

But this one, by August 7th, was fully published in the Internet version of it. Now, the print version came out in December of 2020, but in August 7th of 2020, the world had in the peer-reviewed literature, an approach to treating it. Now, it featured a hydroxychloroquine-based approach, and one of my co-authors from Henry Ford was saying, gosh, I wish we would have included Ivermectin. There's just enough there. We could have had it. And within four months, we had an updated paper with Ivermectin in it, but, you know, there always is a learning curve. And the letters to the editor that I received will forever, I think, memorialize something very, very, very. very unique. And the letters came in from Manash University in Australia, prestigious university,

came from, I believe, McGill in Montreal, Duke University, a university down in Brazil. This is, we can almost spot around the world. I think there were six of them that came in. The general theme of the letter is, you can't do this. You can't treat this illness. You don't have enough evidence. You're going to cause harm. You can't do this. And my response, I just let these come in, and Joe Alpert let these come into the journal. My response was, you know, overcome your fear and join me in helping people get through the illness. Yes, we can treat it. Are there uncertainties? Of course there are. You know, is this handed to us on a silver platter? Do we have, you know, we need clinical trials more than 20,000 patients. You know, those are going to take.

take years to come forward. None were even planned. Even to this day, we only have one with the Merck drug, which failed, and we don't have conclusive trials. We said, listen, the rules of pandemic response treatment for therapy were start as early as we can, because that's a principle, whether it's Ebola or smallpox or SARS-CoV-2, or whatever the next infectious disease. That one was clear. Start early. And do you start early because of replication? Yes, you don't want. Because replication and also the response to it, the immunosinflammatory thrombotic response, don't let it brew. We were seeing people die.

We've seen people coming in the hospital on average at two weeks and then seeing people die at 30 days. We said, wait a minute, this is not a two-day illness where people drop dead. We actually have a long time to get organized on treatment. So A, start early, and then B, we need drugs with a signal of benefit. Signal. Just show us something. Something that gives promise. We already had that with hydroxychloroquine.

We had it with ivermectin. We quickly saw it with other drugs that came in, cortical steroids, et cetera. In fact, Pierre Corrie had testified in the U.S. Senate in May of 2020, St. Listen, steroids work. There was, again, confusion over steroids. The steroids make a difference. And then we rounded it out with other drugs. But we needed signals of benefit, and the most important thing,

Harvey Rish made this point, they have to be safe. if they're acceptable in safety, the worst thing we would ever do was just be overtreat patients with a safe drug. And these were safe drugs because they've been using them for years, right? Well, the first thing we were attacked on was hydroxychloroquine.

Well, it can prolong the QT interval. It's like, well, so can a xithromycin, so can a Z-Pact, so can antihistamine, so can antifungals. We know this. We're not to manage it. I'm not going to prescribe hydroxychloroquine on somebody who's on sodalal,

which is a markedly QT prolonging drug in a heart scenario. Doctors know how to use drugs. No, you can't do this. In fact, there was a paper published by the Mayo Clinic. First author was Banzel. And I called this out in the U.S. Senate hearings. He had published a review paper on hydroxychloroquine. Lessons learned.

It doesn't work in COVID. And he actually had a cartoon that hydroxychloroquine was causing a scar in the heart, a scar. and said, well, there are some studies in rheumatoid arthritis that infecting animals that could lead to a scar. Wait a minute, causing a scar and he showed this gigantic scar growing in the heart with hydroxychloroquine. I said, this is fraud. I said it on the U.S. Senate floor. I said, this is academic fraud from the Mayo Clinic. I ultimately really moved hard on that publisher to retract the paper, and they ultimately didn't do it but accepted a letter to the editor.

So kind of the academic battles began. But I think the drug that takes the prize for the safest drug of all time, that is also the most dynamic drug in this illness, is ivermactin. Ivermectin discovered in Japan, as John points out, from a natural substance. Isn't this interesting that hydroxychloroquine useful, and it's modestly effective, from a natural substance? Ivermectin from a natural substance. Vitamin D, natural substance.

Vitamin C, natural substance. Zinc, natural substance. We can keep going on and on. Aspirin from the willow bark, natural substance. Almost everything we use to treat COVID is natural. The reason why Ivermectin is so notable is that its safety profile is better than Tylenol. It's safer than taking a Tylenol.

can get confused and make an overdose. We've seen this in family members when my mom got sick. We shuttled over the McCullough Protocol, and we were coaching her every day. My wife was trying the best we could. Next thing you know, all the Ivermectin was gone. I said, Mom, what happened? She was, well, I kind of got confused. And the thing is, well, usually you're laughing, but it's safe for seniors.

You can actually overdose on it, and it's perfectly fine. Yeah, on that point, I mean, one of the weirdest moments for me and my research, I'll never forget it. The NIH, the National Institutes of Health, they come out in August of 2000, I think it's August 26, 2020 with their treatment guidelines. And as Dr. McCullough can speak about in an indignant tone, they're the most nealistic. It's just nothing works, you know, we're all, you know, completely hopeless with this thing. But in this review of possible things, things that have been proposed is Ivermectin. And what I thought was so fascinating was it cites a research study on Ivermectin from the Merck Laboratory, I think from the year 2005. This was what this kind of slapdash

NIH research assistant or whoever it was that wrote this worthless paper, this is what he or she cited as showing possible toxicity risk. But if you actually go read the Merck paper, the conclusion is doses that are way above, like a hundred times higher than the conventional dose for river blindness, some of these escapes. be some of these other indications for ivermectin, way higher doses showed no toxicity. So you think, well, no, wait a minute. Like, you're giving us the proposition this thing is dangerous, but the literature your citing says that it's not.

That's where you begin to think, okay, either these people are acting in bad faith. the other possibility is they're just not very scholarly people. You know what? My conclusion was early on because I heard it in my medical center and I definitely got a sense with those salvo of letters to the editor of American Journal Medicine is I thought the doctors were just afraid to treat it that if someone came out and said you should face COVID-19 in your office or in your clinic like I was doing in Didio Realte and Vladimir Zelenko and George Fried and Brian

Tyson, that other doctors would also have to face it and then they could risk their lives treating patients. So I think what my initial interpretation was, this is defensive. These guys are just plain defense. They don't want any treatments that come forward because they don't want to crawl out of their spider hole and actually have to face it. Now, just to clarify, the infectious disease side of America had a series of inpatient treatment protocols that was moving along. I think three or four of them through 2020.

But the National Institutes of Health largely synced with IDSA. Put it out October 8th of 2020. And when we first came out, everyone sent it out. We poured through it. It said, listen, someone gets COVID at home. Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, do nothing. And wait till they get admitted. Then when they get admitted, do nothing. until they need oxygen. And then when they need oxygen, you can start the very first drug, remdesivir, the intravenous antiviral.

That's October 8th. Now, early in November, I want to say November 20th of 2020, the World Health Organization, which had already done the largest study of remdesivir. It had come in. It correlated. They held a consensus conference. They had a human ethicist involved.

They had the European Society of critical care involved. and they publish their deliberations on this. And they conclude remdesivir should not be used because there's no benefit to patients and it clearly has organ toxicity. We're talking kidney and liver toxicity. We had already seen in my medical center, my patients who are hospitalized through 2020,

we couldn't get through five doses because the liver function tests were going through the roof where the kidney function was going out. If the kidney function goes out, the lungs fill up with fluid and people basically drowned to death. This was my prior research before COVID. And so incredulously, so the NIH should have immediately said, listen, we're pulling remdesivir off our protocol.

The NIH never went in sync with the WHO. Health and Human Services in the United States actually said, go hog while on remdesivir. Go for it. We'll incentivize you with extra payments if you use remdesivir. So against the WHO contraindication, the U.S. hospital started, and the National Institute's support, supported them, and IDSA supported them to make remdesivir a standard of care. You can imagine,

after two weeks, remdesivir has no hope of benefiting people because the vital replication is done. In fact, there was a study done by Gottlieb and colleagues from Dallas at my medical center, published in the knowing of general medicine, where remdesivir was given in the first few days of illness as periodic intravenous infusions as an outpatient, and it worked. So the point is, yes, but it was all about timing. And so these were some of the trials, the tribulations, and what laid in the balance is America racked up hospitalizations and deaths. And it just stepped going. We saw it sweep through the nursing homes. We saw it sweep through elderly communities. And collectively, you know, our hearts were broken with what we saw. Well, like you said, Uncle Sam was paying 20% more for people being, you know.

You call that a perverse incentive. And that's... concept perverse incentive, that's not just a metaphor. I mean, there's a long literature of, you know, government investigative bodies that talk about perverse incentives. That's when an incentive is in place that encourages people to do irrational or harmful conduct. So we see, even though the WHO said, and particularly in the hospital setting where it's beyond the replication phase and some of these people are really sick they need their kidney function so don't give particularly if they're diabetics and they already have some kidney impairment like don't further damage their kidneys then now you've really got fire on the roof so as we went through this with dr mccullin lending all of this experience

and my approach to this was just kind of that of a criminal investigator. What we concluded is that in aggregate, the evidence indicates that pretty much every single aspect of the public health response to this, starting with gain of function grants to Echo Health Alliance, starting with the creation of the bug itself, Every, every, I mean, it's, you know, a stopped clock tells time twice a day correctly. Our government health agencies, in my assessment, and I've been studying this for a long time with Dr. McCullough's assistant, just got nothing right. I mean, just every aspect of this in the way this was handled, I'll give you another example. I'll give you two more examples. I'll never forget it. I guess it was late 2021.

Dr. McCullough comes over to review some stuff and he says, you know, I really think there is something to these nasal washes. I mean, kind of just common sense deductive reasoning. If the thing is replicating in the nose and then you have an agent that will destroy it, wash the nose with it. I mean, why not? Yeah. But even that, even nasal rinses, you have these various elements of the biopharmaceutical complex saying, no, you shouldn't even try that. Exactly. So that's one thing.

The other thing is there's a character in our book named Dr. Yvette Lozano. She's a real courageous doctor in Dallas. It's a wonderful story. A lot of people think it's the best chapter in the book about Dr. Lozano. She just performing her own observation noticed the people that come into my clinic who are really in trouble with this, like real difficulty breathing. I'm seeing two things again and again. One, they're overweight, 40, 50, 60 pounds overweight. That's the first thing.

Secondly, if I just prick their finger, do a little blood test for blood glucose, they have blood, they have, they have, um, high blood sugar. Those two things. So she just, there is no randomized, whatever double blind placebo trial. It's, you need to lose weight quickly and you need to stop eating sugar.

Like this thing's probably not going to kill you for a couple of weeks. That's enough time, believe it or not, to get your blood sugar down, to start moving. And to act, you can actually lose quite a bit of weight. if you fast and if you get off the sugar.

I had a number of people say, the day that my blood sugar went below 100 was the day I quit coughing. Yeah. So that's just one observational doctor in the field. But how do you argue with her patients? How do you say, well, I know that you felt dreadful, like you had an 800-pound gorilla sitting on your chest.

the day your blood sugar went down below you suddenly could start breathing again but that's wrong you know that that's just a fluke observation but this is what our public health agencies did anything that just seemed useful yeah you know it was a stunning that we had operation warp speed which was a broad a whole variety of products one of them really came out as a winner of monoclonal antibodies. These were high-tech intravenous infusions. They block the virus. They kind of stopped the virus in its track. The first one was amyloomab. It was approved before the vaccines. It was November of 2020. This was great. This thing came. We'd get infusions. Patients would come in. We'd figure out how to do it. And then they evolved over time. Former President Trump received

monoclonal antibodies. America saw him rebound. And then one after another, the government was say, no, we don't think these are going to theoretically work anymore. And they just pull it off the market. Without any clinical evidence of failure, they pulled one after another, after another. Then people were scrambling, who's got them? We never had any billboard saying where to find them. There was scalping going on. Urgent care say, well, we'll do it, but you got to pay us, you know, some of money. These were provided free from the government. There was a paper in medical economics in 2020. Said, listen, we've got enough monoclonal antibodies to treat hundreds of millions of Americans.

I mean, we had a massive purchase of these, but yet it was hide and go seek with these, and then they were sequentially pulled off the market. Especially for Florida. Do you remember that? Yeah, Florida, it was obvious. Wait a minute. Now monoclonal antibodies are being undermined.

Nasal sprays are being undermined. I'll never forget the first time in a public program I reviewed. There were 12 clinical studies of nasal sprays. One, very impressive from Bangladesh, three large randomized comparative trials. Using the vibracidal nasal sprays, dilute hydrogen peroxide, dilute palidone iodine, it really worked. An email came out through Medscape or Med Information. There's these physician email services.

It says, anti-vax doctors, push iodine nasal sprays. Patients will swallow them and die. It was like, whoa. And, you know, I think what memorializes this class, concept of therapeutic nealism was the recommendations that came out of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, TGA of Australian. And they had, their recommendations were amazing. It says, SARS-CoV-2 treatment recommendations. Number one, do not use hydroxychloroquine. Number two, do not use ivermectin. Number three, do not use steroids. Number four, do not, and they literally

line-itomed every single thing you could use and said, don't use it. And the answer is, okay, well, then what do we do? Nothing. What do we do? Just wait until you die. I've never seen. In cardiology at the time, I think we had about 60 guidelines before SARS-CoV-2 came up. They give suggestions on what you can do.

Well, if a patient has this condition, you can use these drugs. The guidelines are not an exhaustive list of what not to do. They actually give you helpful guidance on what to do. And the most extraordinary thing that frustrated us, is our governments across the world were telling us what not to do, but they weren't giving us anything to do to help people. Yeah. Okay, here's a tough question,

but I know this is something everybody, we, so many people have written in, especially to ask, you know, you're a cardiologist, how, how dangerous is the vaccine? Is it? How do you look at this? And for people that have had it, and say that, you know, some of this stuff we're hearing already coming out

about the vaccine, potentially causing blood clotting and whatever. Is there something that people can do also that have had the vaccine that, you know, they can just look out for themselves from a cardiologist perspective? I would say follow the FDA warnings carefully. Very important. So if the FDA says that these vaccines can do something, take it seriously. Now, when the FDA says or the CDC says it's rare,

don't take that as a reassurance. Because we don't know how many people really have had the problem. Our reporting systems don't capture every single person who gets the problem. But the fact that our agencies say it happens, we should take it seriously. So the FDA and the CDC say the COVID-19 vaccines cause myocarditis, heart inflammation, and heart damage. They say that. And they said it as early as June of 2021. that's a very serious warning do we take any other drugs antibiotics antihistamines do we take any

other drugs that cause heart damage do we walk into cvus and walgreens and take any other drugs that cause heart damage no we we go in cardiology we work our entire lives of lowering cholesterol exercising eating right because we want to avoid heart damage with a heart attack yeah so this idea that we would take something that the FDA says causes heart damage, let alone mandate something that causes heart damage, it should be incredibly worrisome, should be alarming. Everyone should be alarmed with this. I remember when they were talking about myocarditis and paris. I just remember how the media treated it. The media treated it like, hey, look, you get it. You'll be over it in a week. No big deal, right?

Just a little heart damage. But how serious is it? Well, here's the thing. Let's just take about how common it is. So what happened was in August of 2021, the FDA grants biological licenses agreements to Pfizer-Moderna, which means you can get approved and on the market as a commercial product. People can actually buy this in the future, but you have to study myocarditis. You have to tell us how common this is. And the only way to figure out how common it is is to actually check from myocarditis and all the blood tests and imaging before the shot and then give the shot and then do all the same test after the shot. That's the only way. It's called a prospective cohort study. The FDA said in the biological licensing agreements do the prospective court study. You would think Pfizer-Madernet immediately would go to Duke or Harvard, commission a study, do world-class assessments, and get this out there. They had unlimited resources. The United States government was pre-purchase in this. Billions of dollars were pointing to these companies.

Such a study would cost maybe a couple million, maybe 10 million to do it. Why would they do a high quality prospective court study? We actually had already had through COVID itself in 2020 myocarditis screening programs. There was a fear of the virus was going to cause myocarditis. So the Big Ten, they had a sophisticated high-quality myocarditis screening study and they did it on thousands of athletes. It was already done. They didn't find much with COVID-2, but the military had a program. We could have just done what the NCAA military did for myocarditis, but yet the companies did nothing. They did nothing month by month. Where's the studies of myocarditis?

So Mansugia and colleagues in Bangkok, Thailand, take the bull by the horns and they do a prospective cohort study. Children, age 13 to 18, second shot of Pfizer, and they come up with a number of 2.3% are divided. developing heart damage. And in that study, which was only about 300 kids, two kids were hospitalized. Oh, wait a minute, that's not good. And then a paper by La Pesek and Christian Mueller in Basel, Switzerland, and Christian Mueller is a friend of mine. They do nurses and health care workers, 777 nurses and health care workers.

They present this at the European Society of Cardiology, the most prestigious cardiology meaning in the world, on Shaw III, the Boosters. So an older group, mainly women this time, the number they come up with, 2.8%. Now they show a rise in the blood test troponin. So wait a minute. If you average that out, that's 2.5% of people who are taking this are getting objective heart damage by blood testing, EKG, echo, and MRI, or certainly a sub fraction of that. But that number is way too high.

So the initial estimates where the CDC says, well, we're not sure how many people get it, but if we divide by all the doses, we think this is 62 cases per million. Now, myocarditis can happen with parvovirus or other viruses, and the previous baseline was four cases per million that was known in our literature. The CDC said 62. 62 sounded really bad to me. In U.S. Senate, when I testified in January 24, 2022, I said, listen, one case is too many. One case. One case is too many. We're not going to have kids with heart damage in our country.

if you take this Musugin-Lapesic combined estimate, we're talking 25,000 cases per million. Wow. Twenty-five thousand cases per million of myocarditis. And how serious is it? Well, the original CDC FDA assessment, 90% of the kids hospitalized. Tracy Hogue at UC Davis, roughly 90% hospitalized. There were papers, and they started pouring out hundreds and hundreds of papers on heart damage. And then the fatal paper started coming in.

And, you know, kids were found at home. Parents called the academics, one, by Gill and colleagues in Connecticut. They do autopsies. They call in pathologists from New Jersey of Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota. They said, listen, we want to be sure that we're right about this. These kids were found dead at home a few days after taking Pfizer. They conclude it's fatal vaccine-induced myocarditis. Verma from Washington University in St. Louis,

and New England Journal Medicine reported one. Choi in Korea. And then autopsy studies came in, won by Schwab, Germany, Chavez from Colombia, saying, listen, people who die after the vaccine, one of the fatal causes of death is myocarditis. And then Patone, just kind of blew me away. Patone in circulation, our best cardiology journal in the UK, report on 100 fatal cases. And at the top of the death certificate says vaccine-induced fatal myocarditis. what's reported in the medical literature is a tiny fraction of reality.

A tiny fraction. I am telling you this is a monstrous problem. Our guidelines said before COVID-19, if anybody develops myocarditis, we can't let them play on the playing field. We can't. We can't let athletes because the surge of adrenaline with exercise is going to precipitate a fatal arrhythmia. That was already known in our literature. So it's clear.

one of the examples in 2021 it's really worthwhile is a Swiss Olympic marathoner Fabian Trump. She's wonderful. It's like rank 13 in the world. And she takes three shots. She says, listen, I took these shots. I got myocarditis. I'm not going to run for a year until I can get this to settle down. She says, I can't because I could precipitate sudden death. What happened was the NCAA in the military folded up their tents, no longer did myocarditis screening because the COVID-19 illness didn't generate really any meaningful cases of myocarditis. And then they rolled out the vaccines, later on mandated the vaccines, never screened the athletes or the military for myocarditis and started letting the sudden deaths roll in.

And boy, are we seeing them. Oh, yeah. We're seeing them every day. They're just trying to hide them. Even locally, you see 14-year-olds just die suddenly. So to me, I was talking earlier this error in thinking. So this categorical insistence from the outset, there is no treatment. Okay, so that's case A.

Case B is the vaccine is a novel product, unlike hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, which we have hundreds of millions of doses tolerated. Hydroxychloroquine's been around since the 50s. Unlike those drugs, which we've categorically asserted to be dangerous, with this new novel product Messenger RNA, it's a gene transfer technology. Some of the earliest development of this goes back to about 2010. So in our first human trials, we're,

just right after SARS-CoV-2 arrived in the United States, we're going to categorically insist that this is safe. Well, how? I mean, how do you know that? How do you know that to the point where you can say, we don't even have to do a risk-benefit analysis? Not necessary. Although we're not seeing any evidence that young athletic

children, active, athletic, there's no indication at all that a young athlete is really presented with a high risk from COVID-19. It's statistically negligible. These kids are maybe sick for a day or two, have a headache or something. So now you're going to do the opposite and say everyone, including the young and the fit and the healthy, have to get a lot of you. Have to get it. It's a new product. They all have, if you, you know, a friend calls me in despair, his son's gotten a lacrosse scholarship to Duke University. He's this 17, 18 year old boy. He has to get this new experimental use authorization product in order to enjoy his scholarship benefit. So that's where I began to think. I don't understand

why the citizenry isn't just revolting against this. Let me ask you guys something. You said earlier, Dr. McCola, about, you mentioned a World Economic Forum, which we've covered a lot, New Old Order, that type of stuff. When you hear the word population control, does it mean anything to you guys

in terms of this entire thing? It's so hard to assign motive. Yeah. Like what would be the motive? It's clear the aspiration. The aspiration is a needle in every arm and every human being in the world. And I got a sense of this very early in December of 2020.

I'll never forget when the vaccines arrived at my medical center. And the idea is, well, we're going to give it to frontline workers. I said, okay, well, people are frontline workers. I mean, sure. To me, I'd say get it to the nursing homes because that's where the mortality's were occurring. The frontline workers were doing okay, basically. But they roll it to the frontline workers, and they're out in the lobby of the hospital.

There are people who are giving, and there's people lining up at vaccine centers in Dallas, and one of my patients, we waited six hours and got dehydrated out there waiting for a vaccine. You know, it really took on a life of its own. I'll never forget the press releases. The Pfizer vaccine is coming, and these muscled men were wrestling with these pallets and the frozen ice and the steam was coming up, and they were going on the truck, and people are on the side of the road clapping. It was almost like it was

a victory day or something. It almost reminded me of this. Like, oh my gosh, we're going to be saved by a vaccine. And as John said, what came in everyone's mind, not only the alphabet agencies, but doctors, nurses, and patients, is this vaccine is brand new. It's genetic. It's high tech.

And it is 100% present. to be safe and effective. In fact, it's so safe and effective, it's going to be a safe and effective long term, even though it's brand new. No one had ever taken the shot and been observed to see if they're okay for two years, but it was presumed they are going to be okay for two years. This was going to be fine. And I knew something was wrong because I already had COVID-19 myself in October 2020.

I'd gotten through it and I had some pulmonary involvement and yeah, it was a longer illness. So here it is December of 2020 And I start getting a text message Dr. McCullough, you're going to come get your vaccine? I said, no, I was kind of proud that I already went through it You know, I was the only cardiologist in our division I said, I already had it. I'm good, I already had the illness.

They said, well, why don't you get it in any way? I said, I already had it. You know, this would be like having, you've already had mumps. You're not going to go take the mumps vaccine. You know what I mean? I said, I already had it. I'm good. I'm already done.

I'm already through it. And then I got more emails. Then I got more text. Like, aren't you going to take it? You know, just in a sense, just for the fun of it? It's like, no, no, I'm going to decline. The other thing within the first week of the vaccine administration program where I knew immediately something was wrong. And I knew immediately the motive, the aspiration of getting every person vaccinated was overriding any reason.

sense of medical jurisprudence and good clinical practice was the fact that in the first week about 3,000 pregnant women, largely nurses, took the vaccine. I told myself, oh, my Lord, the clinical trials, which were just done two months earlier, they actively excluded pregnant women, women of childbearing potential, breastfeeding women, COVID-recovered people like me, suspected COVID-recovered, they were actively excluded because the vaccine would be likely to harm them. and that's the reason why we exclude them from clinical trials. Wait a minute.

How could the vaccine administration centers give the vaccine to a pregnant woman, a novel, genetic, unproven vaccine of which they were just two months earlier. They couldn't get it in the clinical trial. Now, suddenly they could get it in the lobby of my medical center. In fact, pregnant women were doing this. I said, wait a minute. The desire to have everybody valid. vaccinated is overriding any concerns over safety. It's overriding anything that could be appropriate.

There almost seemed to be like a fever developing. I had another patient, and patients came in different buckets. Some were vaccine enthusiasts. They were going to wait in line. They were going to take it. Others were more hesitant. I had one patient come in and said, yeah, doctor, I got my two shots. I said, well, okay, are you doing okay? Well, yeah, I'm doing okay. And it was about a few months later, I saw a patient, and he said, yeah, well, you know, I went on a trip. I said, okay, so just to be sure I went into, I went in, I got another shop before I went on the trip. I said, wait a minute, you're not eligible for that.

You know, you don't come eligible to a certain time for it. Oh, they'll give you an extra one if you go in there and just ask for it. And I realized, oh, my, again, you give an extra one. these are novel genetic so they weren't even following any prudence schedules it literally was take as many as you can now here we are three years later i got a distress call from a wonderful doctor in the northern part of ontario i mean he's almost right up at the at the shield up there he says i'm just distraught he says we have standing orders now in our hospital every patient that comes in gets gets a vaccine shot he's

and they're not even checking to see when they had their last one. It doesn't matter. Just give them another one. Just blanket it. Just carpet bomb people with these vaccines. So this overriding, you know, you mentioned depopulation. Other people are mentioning compliance. Gosh knows what could be the aspiration here. But what would drive large numbers of people who can't possibly be in on some secret plan. These are doctors and towns and CEOs and others and people on the board of directors of universities. What could override good clinical practice, good common sense, conservatism, what could override that to the point of this zealousness of this, they feel so strongly about it. Recently, there's a little internet clip on this.

Sean Penn. Remember him? Fast times at Ridgemont High. Had long hair, Mr. Hand. He was going to be the rebel against society, you know, lived a tough life and all this stuff. Mr. Tough guy, right? He's going to say all of Hollywood should go on strike unless somebody takes one of these shots. All of Hollywood's strike. We're three years into this. Really? Sean Penn? Where's the, you know, where's the independent? here. And what's in his mind? What's in people's minds on this? And how when, you know when people have reached a sense of insanity, what is he really proposing? You take a shot now. Now, everyone agrees they don't last six months. So that means, what are you going to go on strike in six months? And people aren't thinking even six months ahead of time. Yeah, there's something majorly weird. You know, the thing about population, and this is just an observation. If you spend time, circles of people who have dedicated their life and work to environmental, global environmental issues. You know, you get some people who really identify clear problems.

Like, we need to stop deforestation. Like, stop burning down rainforests in Borneo to plant palm oil plantation. Like, stop doing that. Clean up the ocean. The Pacific's full of plastic. Let's clean up. the ocean. Let's go to the point source these rivers in China and India and stop the pollution. So you have some just practical-minded environmentalist. I know a few. But if you hang around for

long enough in the environmental movement, what you see and published papers, tabletop exercises, we need to reduce population. This is a very, very common theme. In 1974, there was a book that was published called the Population Bomb. It was a bestseller at the time. And it really prompted a lot of science fiction writers to envision scenarios in which the overlords of this world feel like the whole earth, humanity and all of the, you know, all life on earth is going to be threatened by this out of control human population. So there are a lot of people that are thinking about this. In 2010, Bill Gates gave a TED talk about how to reduce carbon emissions. He has this idea that climate change is primarily generated by human carbon emissions into the atmosphere. And he starts by saying, you know, here's the equation.

We've got population. we've got emissions per person. So how do we reduce carbon emissions? And he says, well, let's start with population. If we do a really good job with vaccines and reproductive health, we could maybe get that number down about 15%. And I remember thinking, I thought vaccines preserve people so that they could go on and reproduce.

So what was he thinking? Maybe it was just a fluke. But something, some synapse fired in his brain at that second, like vaccines would actually reduce the population. So I'm not, that's not evidence. That's not the kind of evidence that you could present in a court of law. But you do wonder, is there a confluence going on now between, people who feel like to save humanity in order to save humanity in the planet, we need to reduce

humanity. What was the Vietnam War? In order to save the village from communism, we had to completely destroy. Level it with the C-130 gunship. You know, the interest among those who go to Davos for the World Economic Forum in these types of issues is extraordinary. In the most recent meeting in Davos, only 22% of it was about economics. It's the world economic forum. It was about populations and technology and what Klaus Schwab describes as the fourth industrial revolution where it won't be new widgets or new machines, but it's going to be actually a new human being to redesign the human being, change the human, He, you know, has glowing interviews where it almost seems like he's thrilled with the idea of gene editing, what's called transhumanism, forms of digital tracking and passports, and centralized currency, and various types of controls.

The World Health Organization desperately wants worldwide authority on health. they want to say, listen, they declare a health emergency and from WHO headquarters, change what happens right here in rural Georgia. Tomorrow your schools will close because we have declared that there is some health emergency. So there's something afoot by what people call globalists and globalism now that is at a febrile stage. It's almost as if these people have a fever. Why would a group interested in economics have any interest in viruses or outbreaks or pandemics? Why would the World Health Organization, which traditionally does data analytics, you know, global assessments of health, reasonable sets of definitions for various illnesses,

okay, that's fine. Why would they actually want to be interventional? Why would they want to, you know, interfere with what's going on in Georgia? We saw the same thing here locally with our Center for Disease Control. The CDC, again, does outbreak investigation, data analytics, and in vitro diagnostics. And they do a wonderful job. Remember the hanta virus figuring out, where's the hanta virus? How about Ebola in Dallas?

Well, they were on the ground when we had Ebola at Presbyterian Hospital. in Dallas. They kind of did a great job. They settled things down, helped us. You know, we don't have Ebola tests and what have you. They actually help figure things out. They're actually helpful. I did my residency at University of Washington in Seattle. And many of my fellow residents became CDC officers. U.W. in Seattle's Mecca for infectious disease talent. Many became CDC officers. And my friends, they're at the CDC. They take lifelong positions. how did it get in the mind of the CDC that they were going to go downtown

and make sure every person on an airplane wears a mask? How did that happen? One time in an interview, someone said, Dr. McCullough, what do you think about the most recent CDC ruling? I said, what are they? The Supreme Court, CDC doesn't issue rulings. They don't issue rulings. And the fact that the CDC got into the habit

of making public recommendations that were taken as rulings. And we actually had to have a federal judge in Florida finally decree that they can't do this. It's not lawful. They can't rule that we have to wear masks on airplanes. So I think what happened is the CDC, all of these organizations became in the habit of overreaching what they normally do. and they became drunk on power. Yeah. Yeah, the World Health Organization got all this power for so, you know, so long. One thing that I really want to encourage anyone who's listening to this,

and we're about to go to Australia and we have to be careful. We'll be guests in the state of Australia. We have to be careful what we say. What I want to get people, you know, thinking about as just some general principles, We have a long-standing tradition in Western civilization, the idea of the mature, adult, prudent citizen. And government, as it was conceived by our founding fathers was, it's a nation of prudent citizens. They have some literacy. They know their trade.

They know what's best for their families, their children, their children, their children, in their communities. We do need government. We need a central government to govern the entire jurisdiction. But government is something that is for the people and by the people. And the governors themselves

need to be constrained. We've entered a strange period in our civilization where there is this assumption, immediate assumption, The state and the representatives of the state should be invested with authoritarian power and the citizenry should automatically, without any questioning, without any investigation, without any discussion should accept that. So the most, I think the most useful analog, it's something.

like a military invasion. So you're the citizens. An organized, trained military is invading. Like at that moment, you think, okay, we actually do need some kind of central command to mount a countermeasure to this invading army. So we will accept that the U.S. military has this extraordinary power under these circumstances. And what I think has happened with SARS-CoV-2 is the government basically has assumed military martial law powers. That's certainly how they've been behaving.

Yeah. It's like, I don't want to hear from you. A doctor like Dr. McCullough is like some smart mouth second lieutenant. Like we don't want to be hearing from that guy. You know, we in the Pentagon, we in the Central Command, we're in charge of this. and anyone in the field who's questioning our authority to conduct these operations, he just needs to shut his mouth. I think that's what's going on. And the strange thing to me is that why have we accepted that?

Yeah. It's a scary place in the world we're in. Guys, I know you've got to run. Dr. McCullough, do you have anything? Do you want people to know? What is, I know you have a podcast, right? What was the podcast again? Right.

This has been a terrific. discussion. I think we covered the early part of the pandemic really well and therapeutic nihilism and the drugs. And I think most Americans know that, in fact, we can use a multi-drug approach, get people through the illness. Most people know that you can get COVID a second time, but the second time it's mild and we really don't need the drugs. So a recent Harvard study by Klaassen and colleagues estimated that 94% of people have already been through COVID. It's already over with. We can rest assured that if we get COVID again, we're fine.

People are sitting shoulder, shoulder in airplanes. You don't see much worry. See people in airport, lobbies, hotels, restaurants. We're through this. And what our government can't accept is the fact that we are through this. The military campaign is over with. The war is over with. And our government's like, well, wait a minute.

We're all revved up for wartime. We've got incredible power that we have had, money flow to all these suppliers, vaccine suppliers. We have all these grand plans. We have the FBI, FBI installed in Twitter, and we're altering communications. They figured, listen, we are exercising a war campaign, and now the virus isn't doing much. And you see these attempts to try to see if you can't gin up some more fear. Like monkey pox.

Like there's a monkey pox. Oh, now, now let's really. up the war machine again. Oh, they kind of fizzled. And so we're in a very, very challenging time. We've just scratched the surface. I think the real enemy at foot is a new way of thinking. Yeah.

And so we're going to have to comprehend that. You can follow me at peterumacolamd.com. That'll take you everywhere on social media, one of the top doctor Twitter accounts, but I'm also on Getter and True Social and Telegram. Our book, Courage to Face COVID-19, Courage to face COVID.com. Great book.

A wonderful book. Over a thousand five-star ratings on Amazon, ranked highly ranked in multiple categories. My podcast, America Outlaw Talk Radio, McCullough Report. And then our substack, courage, courageous discourse, and I'll let John talk about that. Substack is a free speech platform. And what we discovered is that to research, write,

publish a book as a long-term endeavor, takes at least a year. Our substack, courageous discourse, We post every day. Dr. McCullough really focuses on medical stuff. I'm more in the investigative, historic, political stuff. But our readers, they tend to strongly interact and post comments. It's been a great form of communication. That's a courageous discourse on substank. Funny how that all connected, isn't it? Just because of COVID. Yeah, guys, an amazing book. Thank you guys so very much. Mr. John Leak, Dr.

I'll call them. I hope we'll bring you guys back in maybe another conference room. Yes, sir. Thank you so much. Thanks for having us. Not a problem. Thank you.