The Highwire with Del Bigtree - ARE WE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

Episode Date: March 15, 2022

Dr. Peter A. McCullough joins Del in studio for a dive into the science of vaccinating for Covid, vaccinating your children for Covid, and the risks and benefits. Is the risk worth the benefit? Are we doing more harm than good?#DrPeterMcCullough #mRNASpikeProtein #EarlyCovidTreatment #MyocarditisBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

The doctor's oath is to do no harm. Absolutely important that a doctor is only considering the patient right in front of them. How many deaths is okay? How many deaths by a vaccination are acceptable? Well, there are a lot of doctors getting passionate about this conversation. None more maybe than my next guest, Dr. Peter McCullough. This is him in a Senate meeting with Ron Johnson just a few weeks ago. I'm telling you as a specialist, myocarditis is not mild.

There are papers by shower and now by Trong at the University of Utah at Salt Lake. When they do MRI on these individuals with suspected myocarditis, 100% are having heart damage. There is the father of a boy here in this room who's died of myocarditis. One death. It's too many. One. one, we have 21,000 cases of myocarditis and climbing in the United States that the CDC is verified. One was too many. Under no circumstances, under any circumstances, should a young person ever receive one of these vaccines, let alone ever be pressured to receive a vaccine, let alone ever be mandated to take a vaccine.

passionate and powerful testimony by Dr. Peter McCullough. That was at the Ron Johnson Senate hearing. It is my honor and pleasure to be joined now by Dr. Peter McCullough. First of all, we have had you zoom in and Skype in, and I've, of course, been with you out speaking on stages, but it is just so incredible to have you here inside the High Wire Studio. So I want to thank you for making the trip in to talk with this. Well, it's an honor to be here.

Thank you. I want to just start out with take me back to just from the beginning. What would your perspective? Before COVID, before any of this happened, what is your perspective of vaccines and medicine, you know, and medicine, you know, around that topic? Yeah, I'm a practicing internist and cardiologist. I'm trained as an epidemiologist. And it's been about half my time in clinical practice.

half as an author, an editor, and a clinical investigator. Vaccines were really never in my academic scope, and I never questioned them. And my parents never questioned them. So as a child, I took the vaccines according to the schedule. And when I was asked to take one, I took one. My wife and I went to India a few years ago. We took, we went to the public health department. We took additional vaccines.

And, you know, I had the general understanding. that they were safe and effective and take them as offered. And I had the general understanding that they worked to suppress the recurrence of a disease like polio, that they worked to suppress the frequency of a disease, like getting tetanus if I had a wound infection, and that they offered some personal protection. I think of the vaccine in my life that came in as a new entry that was meaningful, was hepatitis B. So I trained during an era where we were unprotected from hepatitis B. So if I would have gotten a needle stick from a patient who had active hepatitis B, I could have

contracted it myself. So that was my general understanding. Okay. And, you know, can I just ask you in all of your education, how much of that education just going through medicine and a heart specialty, did you focus on vaccination? What would you say for someone that just doesn't know. Like we just have this assumption that doctors really have a deep understanding of vaccination because it's a foundational principle of modern medicine, is it not? So what was it? Just describe the education system around it that you had? Well, in undergraduate, we have some courses in immunology, and microbiology, general biology, pathophysiology. And then in medical school, again, we have not only microbiology, but we can have certain units in virology, have

specific courses on public health. But, you know, I don't recall a distinct section on vaccines. I don't recall anything more than a test question here or there on vaccines. I think they're generally accepted as safe and effective. There's Heidi Larson, sort of one of the sort of head figures of the WHO, especially when it comes to the psychology around the work that they do. In a large meeting, she said to a group of doctors, Let's face it, your average doctor or nurse in medical school are lucky if they get a half a day education on vaccination.

Most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums. I mean, in medical school, you're lucky if you have a half day on vaccines, never mind keeping up to date with all this. Do you think that's an accurate statement? I agree. Okay. All right. response and thoughts? You know, I had enough connectivity to what was going on and communications from New York and

particularly from Milan and Tuscany where, while it wasn't certainly bad here in Texas, it was bad elsewhere. And I got very activated. In fact, with my division chief, we decided to embark on one of the first hydroxyquarkin studies. We got a grant. We got the drug supply coming in. organized my entire research team, which was focused on heart and kidney disease, to

change their focus towards an infectious disease, SARS-CoB-2, the virus, COVID-19, the illness. I got an investigation in a drug application with the FDA. Did that over a weekend. And it was for the use of- What time period are we talking about? This is March. March. March.

I think the I-N-D number was awarded my name March 30th. March 30th. So I got-20-20. Of 2020. And so I got busy early. We embarked on this. And I remember being on some health system task force calls. In fact, I was on one call with the National Institutes of Health.

And the commentary was typically about the health care workers, about negative pressure rooms, personal protective equipment, hand sanitizer, use of masks. And I think on one of these calls, I remember asking the question, are we going to start treating this illness? And it was dead silence. Just no one had an idea. And I went home that night and I thought about it.

I said, this is the opportunity. No one is thinking about treating COVID. No one is thinking about it. So communicated with my colleagues in Italy and they said, well, you know, we think there are some drugs at work. I was watching what was going on in Marseille, France with Didier-R-R-R-Di-Lat. I wasn't aware of Vladimir's Lanko at the time. I wasn't aware of Pierre-Core and Palmeric.

But I embarked with largely at the Italian colleagues with Dr. Ladeppo at UCLA, Dr. Rish at Yale, which we quickly bonded with some colleagues at Emory, and put together the very first paper that says there is a rationale to treat COVID to prevent hospitalization and death. We worked on that in May and June of 2020. The paper was launched to American Journal of Medicine on July 1st, and then it actually went through the peer review process, fully accepted and published August 7th of 2020.

Now, I would have went to New England Journal. I had previously published a New England Journal in Lancet. I thought a breakthrough paper could be there. But there were two things that happened. There was a fraudulent paper published in Lancet on hydroxychloroquine. And there was a fraudulent paper published in the England Journal of Medicine on ACE inhibitors, which is another topic of interest from a fake database, a Surge's Fear database.

I started to get a sense that, wait a minute, things aren't going right. And that's the paper that ultimately is retracted, just for the audience, that Lancet had to retract it because Surgesphere could not provide any data when doctors, and I imagine you were one of them questioning, where's your data coming from? What's happening here? Yeah, I mean, how could a database exactly? back from December, January, February, March, having tens of thousands of people claiming that people in their 40s were being hospitalized with the mean age in the tables was 40.

We're not hospitalized people in their 80s, not in their 40s. So the whole thing looked like it was fraudulent, but the fraudulent claim was that there was an excess risk, a slight. It wasn't much actually in that paper, excess risk with hydroxychloroquine, which turned out to be not to be proven correctly. But what was going on as we were communicating early in 2020? Henry Ford did a big early treatment study in the hospital with hydroxychloroquine. 3,000 patients consented high-quality data showing hydroxychloroquine associated with the reduced risk of mortality when used early in the hospital.

I previously was a program director at Henry Ford. I had colleagues there. We were communicating. And I got a call from Peter Navarro in the White House in the spring of 2020 saying, listen, we are stuck that there was an emergency use authorization. put on hydroxychloroquine, effectively restricting it. In fact, if there was no emergency use authorization, it didn't need one. It was already a fully FDA approved drug. Let me understand this. So are you saying that had they just left hydroxychloroquine alone and just never dealt with it, that it could have been used because it was already approved? A lot of us initially

thought emergency use authorization, oh, it's authorizing us to use it. But then we realized, wait a minute, no, it's not. In fact, this is making it difficult to use as an outpatient potentially. And sure enough, then the FDA in the summer of 2020 let the hammer down, they said, no, we're not going to expand the emergency use authorization. In fact, hydroxychloroquine should not be used to treat COVID-19. Should not. That statement came out in the summer 2020. It was never revisited. There were now, since that time, hundreds of hydroxychloroquine studies that came in. It was never revisited. So I learned something. I learned something that our regulatory agencies were not going to commit to a regular review of new

products. And actually, since this has happened, we have not had regular review on any products in COVID-19. Do you feel like the EUA that was put on hydroxychloroquine was on purpose restricted, or do you think it was just an accidental byproduct of perhaps just bad thinking? I think it's accidental. Yeah. Okay. So at what point, so hydroxychloroquine, you're involved in that. You watch this terrible study come out. Now, the media fairly early on is against it. Tony Fauci, the first time I hear, you know, we were actually reporting on hydroxychloric. We were looking at D.D.R. Ayut in France and talking about that. But the second Donald Trump says it, Fauci seems already bent on saying, I don't trust it.

It hasn't been through double-blind placebo studies. And the media just always seemed to have a bend against it. When you were one of the first, you're one of the first doing the studies with it. you're recognizing that you're being told out of Italy. There seems to be some success with this. Did something seem off with the media's sort of reporting on this? Yeah, it seemed clear that, of course, it's natural to be critical of smaller studies. But I distinctly remember a question was directed to Fauci and said,

if you had a patient right in front of you now with acute COVID-19, would you treat them with hydroxychicloroquine? The historical newsreels will pull this one. answer yes if you're a doctor listening to me right now and a patient with coronavirus feels like maybe they want to try that and you're their doctor you're not anthony fouchy the guy running the uh the coronavirus task force right now would you say all right we'll give it a whirl yeah of course i mean particularly if people have no other option you want to give them the hope in fact physicians in this country These drugs are approved drugs for other reasons. They're anti-malaria drugs and their drugs against certain autoimmune diseases like lupus.

Physicians throughout the country can prescribe that in an off-label way, which means they can write it for something that it was not originally approved for. And those words were uttered. Now, quickly, there was backpedaling, and you're right, it became political. But the interesting thing is it became political all over the world at once. You know, early in April and Australia got on the books, may not use hydroxychloroquine. If one uses hydroxychloroquine punishable by imprisonment or fine in Marseilles, France was over the counter, becomes prescription. Now it's not so readily available.

Then there's more activity. A hydroxychloroquine plant outside of Taipei burns. to the ground. Stockpiles were created, Australia, United States, and then the hydroxychloroquine's never released. United States Association of American Physician Surgeons Sues to release the stockpile. Don't hog the stockpile. And to this day, now it turns out hydroxychloric, when I published the meta-analysis with LaDapo on this, it's still in the preprinted service system. It has about a 25% effect size. About a 25% benefit. It's not a mega benefit. But it's about a 20, it's modestly beneficial. Over 300 supportive studies now. There's actually a 28,000

patient study out of Iran, observational study, but very well done observant, you know, demonstrating a large enough population, there is a meaningful reduction in hospitalization and death when applied in high-risk patients, when applied early, and it's safe. Right. But it's interesting how hydroxychloroquine, which is now in over 30 countries, in the official government recommendations to use it in probably about 50 to 60 NGOs that officially endorse hydroxychloroquine, how in the first few months and of so of hydroxychloricine use, all we heard was hydroxychloroquine was dangerous for the heart. Right.

And now, two years later, we don't hear a word about hydroxychloroquine and dangerous for the heart. But how I characterize it is the first year of the pandemic was largely the year of hydroxychloroquine. The second year of the pandemic was largely the year of. of Ivermectin. And the third year the pandemic will probably be the year, if we continue to have cases of the new EUA oral drugs, the Pfizer and Merck drugs, but this is natural in medicine.

We use what's available to us at the time. Now, this whole time, there's attack on hydroxychloroquine. What we were reporting here is we thought it was interesting that too, we're being told this vaccine, that the vaccine, I mean, Fauci is saying, the vaccine is gonna be the only way to end this pandemic. We're hearing the same thing from Bill Gates and Trudeau and people all over the world

repeating this statement, our only way out of the pandemic is going to be a vaccine. When was the first time you heard that and what were your thoughts about that idea? You are obviously doing investigation into a repurposed drug, you know? So this idea that there's gonna be no drug that will work, vaccine is our only way out.

The landmark that I recall is I was a regular contributor in the Hill, which is, a political journal. And I was asked by someone there to contribute. And I started contributing early on in the pandemic and making the case that we actually do need access for hydroxyquoisoquine. In fact, multiple drugs. But it was in the summer of 2020. I published an op-ed in the Hill.

And I said the great gamble of the COVID-19 vaccine development program. So I put a stake in the ground before the clinical trials were ever done. Okay. And what I said is I said, listen, this is rushing through development. We don't have a great track record for vaccines against respiratory illnesses. And the chances are it's not going to be safe enough or it's going to be effective enough. And I think I was more levered on efficacy than safety. But the reason why I published this op-ed is because we had technology coming forward for the first time that was genetic,

that was not just an antigen-based vaccine. It wasn't a whole virus vaccine. It wasn't a live attenuated or an inactivated virus, that it was genetic and that the mechanism was going to load genetic material on lipid nanoparticles, which were known to go everywhere in the body. This was published beforehand, and it was known that they were going to go to the adrenal glands, the ovaries, the reproductive organs, the brain, lipid nanoparticles crossed the blood bank barrier. For the first time, we're going to have vaccines go in the human brain. This was known ahead of time and that there was going to be a genetic payload and the payload This was the messenger RNA. It was interesting that doesn't need the nucleus The messenger RNA is going to come into the cells. It's going to go into the cytoplasm the rough endoplasmic

reticulum and it's simply going to use the ribosomes that are there The ribosomes are there. They're going to pick up this messenger RNA as the next piece and they were going to transcribe and produce the spike protein The bud on the surface of the virus so So once we started to realize that the pathogenicity of the virus is coming from the spike protein, the organ system damage, the cellular damage, the endothelial damage, the worst part of the virus in late terms. The worst part is what, I mean, because I always say, I mean, mostly vaccines as we look at them, sort of takes a weaker part of the virus.

Should it spread, it wouldn't be, it's not like the, it's not the weapon of the virus. This was the weapon of the virus being recreated by themselves. And actually, as the learning came out in 2020, and certainly in 2020, actually, this was the lethal part of the virus. Right. So the analogy could be tetanus, the tetanus toxoid, the toxin. Well, if you gave a tiny bit of it in a controlled setting, you could form immunity to it, but not overwhelm the body with tetanus toxoid.

That's how the tetanus shot works. Where the hepatitis B, it's really nice. You pick, in a sense, the surface antigen. It's not going to cause any type of hepatitis. Surface antigen is just going to give you immunity. That's it. But this was the spike protein, which we were learning was going to be, in a sense, the loaded weapon. And the genetic mechanism means that we could not control where it was going to be produced in the body,

the quantity that was going to be produced, or the duration that was going to be produced. That's the gamble. Think about that. Where it's going to be produced, quantity and duration. Because we are not, just to be clear for this. audience so that we're not injecting the amount we want in the body, we're sending a message and letting the body produce as much of this as you see, the cell, how many cells do you start producing it, no idea what cells are going to produce it, where in the body, you know,

and then how long it'll be producing until it stops. So total unknowns, complete and total unknowns. Think about the intellectual gamble. Think about explaining that to somebody a few years later. Right. That we were going to give this a spin. Yeah. And we're not just going to do it in a small number of people and carefully control this and observe this. We were going to do this wide open. When it was finally starting to release and you're watching these trials, what was the first place you really felt like there was a red flag as far as safety?

First thing was when the regulatory standards changed. So vaccines, the conventional, so live attenuated, inactivated and protein-based vaccines, two years. of observational safety data. Anything related to genetics, so a small interfering, messenger RNA, gene therapy, which we've tried in my field before, five years. Five years. So truncated to a two-month clinical trial, you know, two months is not going to be enough to see safety. Now we have, there's a pre-clinical paper that just came out. And first author, I believe, is Roltkin. that has demonstrated the messenger RNA is physically in the human body in lymph nodes for months, for months.

So to have safety observed for two months in a registrational trial, but have the product physically be in the body, the foreign product, which is the nucleoside analog caps and the RNA for beyond the duration of safety is extraordinarily concerning. And then the data broke with Bruce Patterson, who leads in-cell DX, where Bruce showed in the respiratory, infection, the spike protein, the S1 segment is in human CD-16 positive monocytes for up to

15 months after the respiratory infection, then Banzol publishes that the spike protein after vaccination is traveling in the body in what's called exosomes or small phospholipid packets. Now we know the spike protein's on the move in the body independently. And then I have Bruce come on the McCullough report for America Outlaw Talk Radio. I said, Bruce, I need to know because he has a registry of people who've taken the vaccine, and he has the ability to detect the spike protein. And I asked Bruce the question, and it's in the recording, Bruce, what are you seeing? He's saying, I'm seeing the S1 and the S2 segment in vaccinated people for as long as I can observe them.

Months. And I asked him, Bruce, how long is this spike protein going to stay in the body? His best estimate is certainly more than a year. Now, why is that a problem? Because I think your average person is listening right now thinking, well, I want my antibodies to last forever. We're not talking about the antibodies. So why is it? We're talking about the dangerous spike protein.

And the question is, where is it in the body? So when the autopsy studies broke of vaccinated people who had taken the vaccine and they short died a few months afterwards, they came from Vienna and they came from Germany, the answer was it's everywhere. The spike protein is in the brain. It's in the heart. It's in critical organs. We're not talking the antibodies to the spike protein. We are talking about the weapon of the virus, the dangerous, inflammatory cytokine-inspiring, you know. Blood clot promoting is the most...

It's all over the body. Right. So, I mean, you could take, everyone understands this. Blood clots in the body are a bad thing. Yeah. The spike protein is incontrovertible. It causes blood clotting. Every single study shows that.

It damages endothelial cells. I published papers with Zhang and colleagues demonstrating the spike protein damages endothel cells. People have the hardest time figuring out. Is it the virus with the spike protein or the spike protein alone can it damage things? And once we started getting the preclinical papers saying, forget the nucleocapsid, just the spike protein alone,

when we give that in models, does it damage cells? Does it cause blood clotting? Does it damage the heart? The answer is yes. Independently, the spike protein is pathogenesis. And they brag, essentially, that the vaccine causes more spike protein throughout the body and thus to create ramp up the antibody production than a natural infection, right? I mean, it's sort of the load is much higher.

It would be okay if the spike protein was benign. So it is true that the antibodies in the natural infection have a blunted curve against the spike protein, the nucleocapsid. And then after the vaccines, the antibodies are, you know, five to ten times higher. So it is true. So what we'd infer, if the antibody response is so much higher after the vaccine, the human body systemically must have been exposed to so much more spike protein. That's concerning because in the respiratory infection, if we're able to battle off the virus in the sinuses and the upper respiratory tract, we don't get much spike protein exposure. Whether you get the respiratory infection or the vaccine, there is some degree of an installation

of something foreign in the human body. So to your average person is trying to decide between those two things. Well, it sounds like natural infection lasts a long time. The vaccine seems to have, are they, is it the same? Am I just, I mean, you know, like how do we make this decision? We're trying to fight something. I don't want to have it forever. People are getting the vaccine to try and avoid that, yet it's filled with the S1,

the spike protein that's the bad guy and lasting forever. The first thing that comes in my mind is dose. Dose. Dose. It'd be best to not get any of this stuff, right? So it'd be wonderful if you know. never got the virus. You never got exposed to the spike protein through the vaccine and that, you know, it was like before COVID. That would be great. I had a patient recently, took the vaccines

because she had to for her job. She's in her 50s, thin, active. And around December, so she gets COVID-19. She languishes and she languishes and she languishes. So she's had the vaccine. She's fully vaccinated. She gets COVID, which is now understood to be common. She gets COVID. She gets COVID. And I want to say between the second or third week, blood clot, she gets a pulmonary embolice, and now she's committed to blood thinners. The thought came into my mind. She's already been preloaded with spike protein with shot one and shot two. Now she's got the third dose with the respiratory infection.

Whoa. And she ends up with a blood clot. It does make me wonder, in all these cases of complications after the vaccine, how many people have been pre-installed with the respiratory infection, and they get additional spike protein with the vaccine. The thought has come into my mind. It's frustrating because I filled out these various forms clinically. And there's no checkbox to say the patient previously had COVID.

Right. So the CDC will never know. So it may be accumulating in some way. You know, we can look at an infection as a dose, and you're just sort of adding this accumulation of this dangerous spike protein. No matter how you're approaching it naturally or through an injection, you are stockpiling something that's really bad for your body. I mean, everything we've just talked about, honestly,

has become known within the last few months. Wow. All right. Because we could probably sit here all day, let me go ahead and dive really into what's got to you on the talk circuit, speaking to news agencies all over, myocarditis, parocharditis. First of all, just briefly, prior to the vaccine, how much interaction did you have with this concept of myocarditis?

It came up rarely. Okay. In the last three decades, I can think of a handful of cases. I can think of one fatal case that was in my circles. It happened to a dean at a medical school. So it can happen. Myocarditis can happen. There are some viruses that can cause it.

It's very much what we consider a very rare condition. So there's a paper from Finland that's useful. It's published recently before COVID, but recently, looking at myocarditis, which tends to be a problem of young people, You'd never hear somebody in nursing. I'm getting myocarditis. It's a young person's disease. But they looked at people, I want to say, below age 20 in Finland, the whole country.

They have very good national registry before COVID. How much myocarditis was out there? And they showed almost none in children before puberty. And then after puberty, there's a rise. About 90% of it was in boys, 10% in girls. So there must be something with puberty and androgens related. Again, before COVID. Right.

And the rate, though, was full. four cases per million. Four cases per million. So you can think of this in the United States if we have, what's the number of children? 70 million? I would say 75 million. Okay, 70, 70.

Let's say 70. So that means 280 cases of myocarditis could pop up. It could be a power of virus, adenovirus, rare cases of what's called giant cell myocarditis, That's the bad one. That one's fatal. I had one of those in my circles. That's fatal. It's completely idiopathic. But people still ask the question, what happens when you get it? And there is a recent paper by Toshope and colleagues in circulation research that suggests in these cases of myocarditis, again, before COVID, that about a third took substantial damage to the heart

and didn't completely recover. You know, there was a hit and it didn't come back completely. And then 13% were really damaged, in fact, could get worse. Okay. So the point is it wasn't one of these things you get in and out of before COVID. Right. Okay, so we knew that by, from prognosis. Now, fast forward to COVID, and as the story broke in June of 2021, the CDC had a universe of cases of several hundred cases, let's say less than a thousand, but several hundred cases,

but didn't have much data, ultimately got down to around about 200 cases. cases that they could adjudicate and they looked at this and said, listen, that 90% of these people who got, there were young people, that they were hospitalized. So we, you know, that's by definition, by regulatory definition, and that's a serious adverse event. You're hospitalized. S-A-E. Hospitalized or died, that's serious. That's serious. That about a quarter had abnormal echocardiograms inferring that they had reduced left-and-tricklor function. They had AKG changes, positive

opponents. They met a clinical definition. And I was asked to go on national TV around about that time and the story broken. And the CDC and FDA, which they had actually a joint meeting, they used the terms rare and they used the terms mild. And I immediately bristled at that and I said, listen, it can't be mild because they're hospitalized. So by definition is serious. We cannot say something that's serious is mild. Anything that lands your child in the hospital is serious. Right. The second point was that it was rare. I said, listen, I can't say it's rare. They had tried to divide among this giant population of adults who took the vaccine. I said, this is just becoming known, and the children were just starting to be vaccinated. So basically, it was affecting the children. We had millions and millions of adults who had all received the vaccine, and as soon as we started seeing this myocarditis issue, they put it in context of the entire body of people that had been vaccinated instead of focusing on the group that it was affecting. So they watered down the numbers essentially by the distributor amongst people that we're not having weren't at risk for myocarditis. If you just focus on the kids, you're like barely any kids have gotten this and we're

seeing huge signals. You can't say it's rare. Right. And that was actually in the CDC slides. I was on one of the calls. And it just, it was obvious. There were attempts to minimize it. And so I used two words. I said, it's serious. And in data safety work of which I've chaired over two dozen data safety monitoring boards for randomized trials, big ones for the National Institutes of Health, big pharma. And I'm on DSMBs right now. I am a chair of DSMBs right now. I do this work.

In safety research, we use the term tip of the iceberg, meaning this first signal, because it's just been detected now, could be the tip of the iceberg. Right. And fast forward, oh my Lord, now we have over 200 peer-reviewed papers in the preprinted server system or in the National Library of Medicine PubMed on vaccine-induced myocarditis. And we're going to go through this. And I want to get into those in just a second. But just this idea, you said, you know, they were trying to minimize what they were seeing

there. That should be so shocking because the CDC, you know, the FDA, NIH, in the United States America, you know, every country sort of has their regulatory agencies. but this idea, the scientific method, I understand it, is you're supposed to challenge the hypothesis or challenge the product with all the skepticism you can muster up. The best scientists in the world are supposed to take every pot shot at it. You can. If it stands up against that scrutiny, then you know it's safe.

It's why we keep these things in a small controlled study, allow people to really, let's see the paper, let's see the peer review on it, let's talk about it. This is a product that's being released to everybody, as you said, a brand new technology, speed linking the immune system, messing with DNA, RNA, things we've never done before, is going out to a gigantic population, hundreds of millions of people in America, maybe a billion around the world. And you're telling me the regulatory agency that should be incredibly sensitive to any little movement is quelling what looks like could be a very large signal.

Because they're in the wrong position. This use is really important for the audience to understand. The named sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program are the FDA and the CDC. They should never be the sponsor of a program. The FDA's role is not to be a sponsor. It is actually supposed to be a safety watchdog agency. The CDC is supposed to be an investigational outbreak organization. The NIH is supposed to be a government research organization.

We should have had a separate vaccine administration committee come together, It should have had an independent data safety monitoring board type of stuff I do. Yep. A clinical event committee to adjudicate these critical events. And we should have had a human ethics board assigned to the whole. Actually, Office of Human Research Protection's in Washington would have been fine for that. That should have been the setup. So any time there was a safety signal, the FDA would say, listen, we're the safety watchdogs,

show us these cases. Right. We're skeptical. We're not going to buy this hook line instinct. Yeah, listen. FDA's pulled 100 drugs off the market. They have no problem pulling drugs off the market. The FDA usually has a conversation with the sponsor and says, listen, things aren't going good so you can voluntarily recall it

or we're going to tell you to recall it. And the FDA is good on it. The FDA is charged with protecting the safety of America. But now they are the sponsor. They're going to stay to themselves. You've got a choice here. You pull it or you, you know. They're not going to.

They've been told they've gotten their marching orders, execute this program. It's a needle in every arm. The president of the United States has barred. a command saying get vaccinated. Do you think the FDA is going to say, wait a minute, we got a safety problem? Let's talk about the safety problem now. We reported just a couple of weeks ago. You've been on before, so we've covered myocarditis. I think most of our audience recognizes you're a specialist here on this issue. You've been very outspoken at the risk. But there's a couple of studies that have just come out recently, and we covered them. I just want

to sort of go over it to get your perspective. First of all, we have a study here. This is the JAMA Network. Myocarditis case is reported after M RNA-based COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. from December 2020 to August 2021. As a passive system, Vairs data are subject to reporting. Now, that's VARES vaccine, adverse events reporting system. This is the CDC's capture system for vaccine injury. Data are subjected to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible, given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VERS after MRA-Based COVID-19 vaccination.

underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated. And it has some numbers. So we look at background rate in 12 to 15, we're supposed to be a background rate of 0.53% per million. This is like a half of one person per million might come away with myocarditis. But when vaccine with a second dose, 70 cases per million.

And then, you know, goes up 1.34 in the 16. 17, we saw 105 cases. I mean, these are astronomical jumps in, you know, the rate of myocarditis. What are we supposed to learn from this? Well, let's just take this in context. This is from the vaccine event reporting system, right? Bears. So that means that in a paper by Meisner and colleagues, before COVID, in the pediatric literature, Meisner asked the question, who reports to VAERS? Where does the data come from? Yeah. Answer, 86% of the time, it's a doctor, it's a nurse, coroner, health care personnel,

or the pharmaceutical company itself reports to VERS. Right. 14% of the time it's the patient or the patient's family. So VERS right now should already tell you it's a serious form of reporting. Right. It's not willy-nilly. Now, there is a self-reporting system that our CDC has for COVID. It's called V-Safe, and you can do it on your phone.

This isn't V-Safe. This is VERS. Right. Now, VERS is multiple forms filled out online or in a PDF. Right. And I can tell you the average submission takes about half an hour. If falsified reports are done punishable by imprisonment or federal fines. Really?

So it is the most serious thing as a doctor that I do. They want my name all over this. Who are you? Where's your office? Because we are told that VERS is just this system. Anyone can report to it. You can't trust it. It's not reviewed.

It's not verified. It's trustable with what's in there, and this type of research is done with those with a permanent VERS number. So everything gets submitted to VERS, and it gets a temporary VERS number. Then the CDC starts to look at it, and when it looks legit, they convert it over to a permanent VERS number. Okay. So all the queries that we do in the open VERS data system and the direct queries we do is on those with permanent VERS numbers. Okay. So if it's 0.5 per million, and they come up with a rate of 70% percent,

per million after the vaccine. The CDC originally had 63 per million. Tracy Hogue from UC Davis using VERS and V-safe. She came up with a number of roughly 90 per million and now we have the sharp paper. Let's bring up. Let's pull that up. All right. Risk of myoporacoditis following COVID-19 MRI vaccination, a large integrated health system, a comparison of completeness and timeliness of two methods. Okay. And in this, conclusion. We identified additional valid cases of myoparricarditis following an MRA vaccination that would be missed by the BSD's search algorithm, which depends on select hospital discharge diagnosis codes. The true incidence of myoporokyditis is markedly higher than the incidents reported to U.S. advisory committees. This matters, and here's the numbers, right? Here's where they show, and you can see that age group, you know, right here, the 537 cases per million in 18.

to 24 years old. We were just talking about 70. Now we're talking about 534 cases per million. Okay. So this is very important. So the age range, 18 to 24, 90% of these are boys or men. Okay. So interesting, that's actually consenting age. So the highest risk are people who give their own consent. This isn't a parental protection of child issue anymore. Right. Ascent or whatever legally authorized representative. These are consulting. sensing adults, males age 18 to 24, rate 537 per million. And when we add in a paper that Rosa, myself, published in current problems of cardiology, we showed the age range extends all the way up to age 50 in VERS.

Now it's skewed. It peaks it around 18 to 24, but it goes all the way up to age 50. Now there's two reports that just hit the literature. And there they actually have two men in their 60s with pretty significant myocarditis. So it certainly can occur later. The point is of using all these different capture methods is use of ICD codes and automated codes versus self-report and then clinical ascertainment.

For someone who takes a vaccine, let's say a young person, we would expect they go to a vaccine center. There's no ICD codes generated. They should take the vaccine, go home, go to work, and they're fine. They should never generate any clinical ICD codes. So describe what an ICD code is for your labor. An ICD code is the international classification of diseases when someone comes in to a ER or a hospital, there is coding that's applied.

Right. And that coding generates bills for the, it generates the hospital bill, basically. And so if there is... And every single ailment you can possibly have has a code to it. Right. So it's sensitive. So if there's chest pain, that's a code. If it's myocarditis, now that's a more specific code.

and then in elevation and chopin in myocardial infarction, it goes on and on. All have their own codes. Right. So there's ways to use codes to identify diseases. So in a situation where someone takes the vaccine and they're expected to generate no codes because they won't go into the ER, using the methods that Sharf used are legitimate because these people are going to a health care provider with a problem and the codes look like it's myocarditis.

Right. Okay. Yeah. Now, in the VAR system, there's no ICD codes. There, largely the doctors, the nurses, the pharmaceutical companies, somebody thinks the vaccine caused it. And in fact, they actually say it's myocarditis.

Okay. And the CDC is calling to verify its myocarditis. So what we have in V-Safe looks pretty solid. Yeah. What we have in papers that are clinical papers that have actually looked at vaccine myocarditis where they actually have the patient's records. They have the EKG, the troponin. the echo or MRI in the clinical course.

That would be the shower paper as an example is a good one. There's all these other places to collect the data that VERS isn't looking at. Yeah, where they actually have the clinical encounters. What we've learned from the clinical papers, not from the ICD code papers and not from VERS, is that in the clinical papers, A, it looks very serious. It looks like the symptoms are deceptive. So some of these younger people, maybe they just have a little fever. They haven't had much chest pain.

They have anything else. And they come into clinical recognition. And then very importantly, the vast majority, far more than 95%, have major heart damage by MRI. That's the big shocker. That's the big shocker. So the clinical papers are worrisome, that what they're finding, very high cardiac troponins, heart damage by MRI. And because of the enthusiasm for vaccines, which is universal among doctors,

we really have to discount their conclusions. You've been talking about codes, and I think it's important because there's a study that, you know, the pro-vaccine side of this, those that are really excited about it, are pointing to this study that basically says the infection itself, having natural COVID is, you know, worse than the vaccine when it comes to myocarditis. Before you show this, let's establish the context. Okay. Again, if you get COVID-19 the respiratory infection, you go get a community.

You get a natural infection. Natural infection. You go to a community testing center. You get a swab. You're COVID positive. You're told to go home. You do that. Yeah.

And you get through COVID. You will never generate anything of interest in terms of ICD because you're at home. You can't generate them. You only get generated when you go generate a hospital bill. Okay. Now the question is, what if you're sick enough to be in the hospital? Right. Now, in order to get hospitalized with COVID, and some of your listeners have been hospitalized

of COVID, they know that you've got to be really sick. When you're sick enough to be hospitalized with COVID or with pneumocococcal and pneumonia or gram-negative pneumonia or any other types of serious pneumonia, the blood test for heart injury called troponin is commonly positive. In fact, it's known in my field that it's roughly positive above the upper limit of detection about 50% of the time. Because it's so stressful to be in the hospital. There is a release of troponin. It's typically not associated with EKG changes with MRI or echocardiographic changes. There's an elevation and cardioponin.

What happened is this elevation and troponin was trippy. off ICD codes because they are generating lots of codes in the hospital. And the codes in the algorithm that positions codes for positive troponin was able to use ICD codes in these studies to declare myocarditis, even though it wasn't clinically validated myocarditis. It was basically chopin elevation. So they're looking at these codes and sort of triangulated and saying this could have been myocarditis.

Got it. Right. Okay. So it's an invalid use of ICD codes in. in hospice because if they would do the same exercise with non-COVID pneumonia, they'd come up with the same conclusion. Okay. So that's going to generate millions of billions of people who have these constellations of codes,

and that's led to the incorrect conclusion that there's way more myocarditis with the respiratory infection than there is with the vaccines. Let's show that study, just so people know what we're talking about. This is the study that's being used to say, risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, people underage 20 population-based analysis. Here's basically what it said. For the 12 to 17-year-old male cohort, 0.09% patients developed myocarditis overall with an adjusted rate per million of 876 cases. Obviously higher than the 537, we were just talking about with the vaccine.

For the 12 and 15 and 19 male age groups, the adjusted rate per million were 601, and 5161. So obviously these are huge numbers, and they're saying this is happening amongst the naturally infected. But what you're pointing out is you were looking at the worst case scenario of those that were naturally, in fact, with COVID that ended up being hospitalized and that these aren't even confirmed. It wasn't that a doctor says you have myocarditis. They used all these different codes to say, well, if we group these codes together, there's a chance that was myocarditis. Let's just consider it myocarditis. And they have this explosive percentage rate that if per million, if we have millions of these people, this is how many per million there would be. but it's a very specific concentrated group of very sick people, sick enough to be in a hospital,

and then a use of codes that isn't really inaccurate. Right. The point is it's contrived, and I think it's contrived to try to make the case that this is normal, that this is acceptable. And my point is, listen, if you get hospitalized with COVID-19, the respiratory illness, that's a bad thing. If you take a vaccine, you should never be hospitalized due to the vaccine. No. No.

No. So for a perfectly healthy person, it's supposed to make you healthy illness. Yeah, it's supposed to make your healthy ears. No, the vaccine is not supposed to put you in the hospital. Right. You sent over a study. They've done an autopsy now of two young men who died after myocarditis, you know, and so let's just take a look at this and maybe you can help me through it. Autopsy, histopathologic cardiac findings and two adolescents following the second COVID-19 vaccine dose. We suspect that the acute cardiac change is seen in these two boys are the result of epinephrine-mediated effects on cardiomyocytes. These occurrences generally have a favorable prognosis. However, some patients may

die from the underlying non-cardiac cause of myocardial findings, such as with subarachnoid hemorrhage. On the epinephrine mediated effects on cardiomyotocytes, what does that mean? There are some conditions in human medicine where there's a surge of adrenaline and noradrenaline in the bite. There's like kind of three, in a sense, chemicals the body makes that really are saved the body in a fight or flight situation. And there are dopamine, noraphyne and epinephrine. There are natural chemicals that we make. In fact, when we give somebody epinephrine, we're actually giving the mimic of the human

pride. The human body does make some drugs in a sense. They make, those are drugs. And there are conditions. So for instance, a subarachnoid hemorrhage, a massive hemorrhage in the brain can cause such outpouring of these catecholamines where they're toxic to the heart and the heart can actually have QT prolongation and have a cardiac arrest. There is a condition where there's incredible stress, emotional stress, and there's an outpouring of catecholamines and the heart responds abnormally

is called tachasubo cardiomopathy. Right. And stress cardiomopathy. It's also called the broken heart syndrome where there can be a cardiac arrest or a picture that looks like a heart attack. In these cases, what happened is boys, they're teenage boys. They took shot number one. They took shot number two. And on days three and four, clockwork, exactly what Tracy Hogue showed in UC Davis, the boys are found dead at home. They're found dead.

Parents are obviously devastated. The coroner gets involved. And they have University of Michigan pathologists get involved. University of Minnesota pathologists get involved. And they do a thorough autopsy. They don't find Taco Subo. they don't find subarachnoid hemorrhage. They find myocarditis in the heart.

And they show inflammatory cells in the heart. Interestingly, in the case number two that's in the figures, there's actually inflammation of what's called the cells around the capillaries called periscites. So that matches exactly what Avolio and colleagues shown in the preclinical paper, that the spike protein in the human heart affects the periscites, the support cells around capillaries and cardiomyocytes. So there's clearly inflammation. and there's this superimposed catacolamine effect, which I'm not surprised.

When these boys at home who had cardiac arrests, and these are healthy boys, there must have been a massive surge of catacolomines. There must have been a struggle. Maybe they sought help. Maybe they were struggling to get on the phone or a cell phone. They knew something was going down, and then finally they just went down and they died. There was no one there. So the important points is there was no opportunity for CPR.

There was no opportunity to call 911. It was cardiac death. Now, we don't know if the boys were previously that day playing basketball. We know in the setting myocarditis that physical activity is out. And this triggering of cardiac death with exertion is well known in myocarditis. It's so well known that our guidelines say don't trigger it. But these autopsies are conclusive. They died of myocarditis.

They died exactly when we thought it would after the vaccine. Now, it follows on a paper by Choi that show that in a 22-year-old Korean man who died after visor. Now, he had chest pain for five days before he went into the hospital. He died within seven hours in the hospital. And it follows on a paper by Verma from St. Louis that was in the Munungan Journal of Medicine last summer with a fatal case. And they showed the histopathology. And I was on national TV recently asked to comment on this. And I can tell you, my point is, where are the FDA warnings now that upgrade myoconial?

that it could be fatal. Shouldn't parents and young adults consenting for the vaccines know that they could get myocarditis? The FDA already says this with Pfizer and Moderna that, in fact, the vaccines cause myocarditis. There's no controversy here. They're saying it caused my, they need to say that it can cause myocarditis and it can take your life. This study was interesting in reading it because it basically said, though, this isn't like the myocarditis we usually see. This seems to be induced by cytokine storm, you know, or cytokine. and, you know, do you know what it's referencing there? It's each different myocarditis is going to have their own signature.

The most lethal is called giant cell myocarditis. They didn't find giant cells there. You know, it's adenovirus or parvovirus is going to be a bit different. This is lipid nanoparticles delivering the genetics for the spike protein. The spike protein shown expressed in periscite's causing inflammation, which is exactly what was shown there. And then it shows the superimposed calicomene effect. It's worrisome for many reasons because if the authors are right and there's a superimposed effect of catecholamines, boy, does this make this the setup for these sports cardiac arrests that we're seeing.

All of those athletes we see, we're getting attacked for having a video that we keep putting out. There's over 100 athletes now plunging face first into the turf. This is what the pathologists are basically saying. Wow. This looks unique that this could be the setup. for a stress induced with catacolamines triggering a cardiac arrest. That's what they're pointing out. When we're seeing these numbers of 500, you know, cases per million, is your thought that

we're not, I mean, do you think it's larger than that? Are there a lot of cases that are just going undetected? Do you think that, do you feel like that's going to be pretty accurate? Boy, it's hard to tell. The VAR system, I think I quoted at the U.S. Senate, was over 20,000 cases that they know about. and there's an under-reporting factors. So under-reporting in VAERS for mortality based on CMS data that came through the whistleblower lawsuit to the FDA, came out at about five as an under-reporting factor.

For all-cause mortality extended out to 20 weeks, the paper by Pantazakos and Seliming from Columbia, that under-reporting factor came out to 20. So let's for easy math say that, we have an underreporting factor of 10 for myocarditis. Then if we have 20,000 cases in VAERS, that means the real number in the United States is 200,000 kids who have had myocarditis enough to become to clinical attention.

We must be starting to see large hospitalization numbers. Now, University of Toronto recently had a paper come out and say, listen, we've got 100 cases. University of Utah at Salt Lake put together a case series, 140 cases. Can you imagine if we have 5,600 hospitals in the United States, 2,200 acute care hospitals. Can you imagine if each hospital can generate 100 cases? Wow. This is all tractable.

We may have that many cases of myocarditis. So we need a ton of research on vaccine-induced myocarditis, who's at risk? for it. Does previously having COVID set someone up? Is it actually the dose of the spike protein? What are the determinants? How to diagnose it? Obviously, we need treatment.

We haven't talked about that. But, you know, I try to just empirically use combination of colchicine and prednisone. And then if there's any signs or symptoms of heart failure by clinical exam, by echocardiography, MRI, and there's three important

biomarkers to measure. Not only cardiac troponin, but BNP, ST2, and Galactin-3, that gives us kind of this idea of is the heart under strain? Right. And I've had some late cases of myocarditis where, in fact, wow, the markers really show it. And I have one right now who's about nine months into it, his heart is finally recovered in terms of ejection fraction. But I really wonder, even though I got the heart pumping function back to normal, he doesn't feel normal, I really wonder long-term, is this going to be okay?

There's great uncertainty. The human heart is a precious asset. We would want no damage. We need this heart to carry us our entire lifetime and to put the kids behind with an unnecessary insult to the heart is unthinkable. That's the reason why I say one case is too many. And so what I've said is that we need,

this is a crisis of compassion, we need people to recognize. These are brand new vaccines. They weren't safety tested. Now we're seeing in the peer-reviewed literature, we have a thousand papers overall about half in the preprint service system, half that are fully published,

200 on myocarditis is incontrovertible that vaccine injuries are happening. They are described. Myocarditis is officially recognized. Vaccine-inized, thromacidopinic papyria is officially recognized. Partial venous thrombosis of portal thrombosis with messenger RNA officially recognized.

Guillain-Burray syndrome officially recognized. Bell's palsy, cervical myelitis. It goes on and on. As the medical literature evolves, this idea is going to have to get into the minds of doctors to be ready to receive these cases. They cannot deny these cases. Patients are furious. Are you at all concerned? You're really out warning signals saying certainly when it comes to the youth, do not vaccinate the children now. obviously everything in medicine, you know, it's a bet in some way. You're betting on what you're seeing as the outcome here.

You're crunching the numbers. This is right in your wheelhouse. Is it accurate to say you're the most published heart doctor in the world? I've heard that statement made. I am in this area of heart kidney interaction. So to give you an idea, an average professor of medicine would have 25 peer-reviewed publications in the National Library of Medicine PubMed. That would be pretty solid.

That used to be a standard. I have 660 plus peer-reviewed publications in the National Library of Medicine. I'm the editor of reviews in cardiovascular medicine. For decades, I've published a chapter in Bronwald's textbook cardiology in Harvard considered the Bible of cardiology. And so I've chaired data safety monitoring boards. I've presented before the FDA and the US Congressional

oversight panel. I have, you know, given lectures all over the world, New York Academy of Sciences. I was the endowed lecture at Harvard two years ago for both cardiology and nephrology division. And in COVID-19 now, I have over 50 peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19, or been the author blocker, or contributor to including the two seminal papers on early treatment. I am telling you, Del, I am not shy about telling you. I am in a position of a third. authority when I tell the world I am concerned about this and I have legitimate concerns and they so far have not been handled. As this seems to be a growing issue, are you, do you have a concern because you're really putting your butt on the line here that the powers that be, we're global interests, who knows, as you said, we don't know really what's behind all this,

that they'll be somehow able to sort of cover up all of these children that are being injured and all the various things. and just say it never happened. Do you have a concern with that, or do you just feel like it's just inevitable, it is going to be obvious to the world, and there's just no way they're gonna be able to hide it? It's gonna be obvious, you know, Robert Malone said a really good on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

You and I both presented there too, it was terrific experience. But Malone said something stuck in my mind. He said, the truth is like a lion. Don't worry about it. Let it out, the lion can defend itself, and it's true. The truth can defend itself.

This is so big. This problem is so big. Think about it. We didn't start vaccinating the kids until midpoint of last year just about. 200 peer-reviewed papers smoking in the medical literature within six months. This is going to be a torrent. There's going to be thousands of papers. Thousands. There will be thousands of papers. There's papers of all the different permutations. Myocarditis, conduction system destroyed. needs a pacemaker.

When I was on Joe Rogan, I was describing myocarditis. And Joe goes, oh, we've already reviewed a case of mycarditis of a young girl who had it. And it took her all the way to the point of transplant. And then she died with an infection after the transplant. There's already Fabian Trump, the Olympic marathoner from Switzerland, who told the Swiss news agencies, yeah, I took the vaccines and I took the booster. Now I've got mycarditis and I can't run. It will come out.

All the athletes who are having these sudden death episodes, it's been calculated what's the rate of sudden death before COVID and afterwards. And obviously there's been a big explosion. But sooner or later, people are people going to put this together and figure out who took the vaccines and when? With myocarditis, it looks like it is temporarily related. I think that's the agreement is. And I don't want to scare people out there. You know, if someone took a vaccine, let's say a young man who's 30, took the vaccine, they took it a year ago. Are they going to explosively develop myocarditis nine months or now?

I doubt it. Now, could they have had subclinical myocarditis and have a problem later on? You know, I do have people report this to me. Say, listen, I took the vaccine in March, but I still don't feel right now. I have some effort and talents. I can't work out the way I used to. What do I think of as a cardiologist? I think, oh, my gosh, did they take some heart damage?

They're young and they're otherwise compensating. And I think there's going to be a lot of cardiac evaluations for either a acute myocarditis, subclinical myocarditis, and then something happens, or actually missed myocarditis, and then they have a cardiomyopathy later on. Do you recommend people that have been vaccinated going in and getting that checked? I think it has to be symptom-driven. I think people took the vaccine, and they're perfectly fine. I don't think we should conjure up. I mean, that's a lot of people.

You know, in the United States. There's 200 million people go pouring into the hospital. Yeah, we have 200 million people, and we could raise a lot of it. And people in my family took the vaccines, and people in my social circles have taken the vaccine. The last thing we want to do is we don't want to, COVID-19 was enough of a fear storm in the United States. We don't want to conjure up more large numbers of fearful people, but at the same time, we want to protect people against what we think is going to be a scourge of vaccine-induced injury syndromes. These look legitimate.

The pathophysiology is there. We know the spike protein is dangerous, and it makes sense for some people. Maybe it's the distribution of lipid nanoparticles. Maybe their import mechanisms are vigorous, and they take out more genetic material. It explains why younger people may have more. That where the spike protein is expressed, how the body responds to it.

Maybe they've been previously primed with COVID-19 respiratory illness, then they get the vaccines. Or maybe like the case I described, maybe she was primed with the vaccines, and then she gets the respiratory illness. I have a feeling that repeated doses, respiratory illness and vaccines and boosters may play a role. That one I think is going to be tractable. So we've covered myocarditis, I think very thoroughly here.

But a lot of myocarditis, people are going to live with it. It's going to be fine. It seems like the ultimate outcome that we have to be concerned about is death. We're seeing all-cause mortality on the climb all over for many different reasons, these heart issues. But, you know, do you believe? these vaccines are causing death. Now I say the CDC says there's no evidence that the vaccines are causing death. What is your feeling on that? Well, we have two cases right here that Gill and colleagues clearly say the vaccines cause death in these two young boys and it's

myocarditis and it's myocarditis and Verma said it. So there is a published literature that says that these cases they're describing. Now the question is are these large numbers of deaths are related to the vaccines. And we mentioned over 20,000 cases of myo-paracarditis in the open VERS data overlay. And in the same overlay, over 20,000 deaths in the CDC VERS system when death is not only a checkbox, but actually death or mortality is anywhere in the vignette or anywhere on the form. That's how Open VERS works. I did a query two days ago, directly on the checkbox of death. That's

typically the first submission to VERS. Did the doctor, nurse, or pharmaceutical company, which is 86% of the time, or in 14% of time the family member, did they actually check off death? Now that's a hard one. You check that box.

They died. That number, as of a few days ago, Dell, was 12,670. So let's take that as a number. That's in the VERS system. Question is, question on the table, did the vaccines cause those deaths? The first thing I'd say is, listen, the person who filled out the form thinks they did. Okay, let's just take that at face value.

So then we look epidemiologically. I'm an epidemiologist. I trained in epidemiology. I use this every day. We have what's called the Bradford Hill Tenets of Causality. This is a criteria assessment we use. In the absence of autopsy, what do we really have to determine and exposure and death.

The first thing is, do we have a large signal? Is it something, we have two people die? Or did we have 12,000-66? So it's a large signal. Right. We know with all the vaccines combined in the United States, I think the number I know is roughly 278 million shots a year, all the vaccines combined in VERS each year,

that number of deaths is round about 150. Typically no more than 50 per product. Yep. So in a single year to hit 12, 670 of somebody checking the box and then over 20,000 anywhere on the form. Those numbers are here. So big signal, we meet that criteria. Second criteria, is it conceivably possible?

Is there a dangerous mechanism of action? Of course there is. We're installing the genetic code for the human body to produce a lethal protein. Right. Got that one. That one's indisputable. Okay. The next criteria, is it temporally related?

Do you take the vaccine and is it just stochastically die? 30 days later? No, two analyses, one by Rose, one by McLachlan, says that 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours, 80% of deaths occur within a week. These two boys died within four days of the shot. Right. I mean, so it's very tightly, temporally related. You got that. Is it internally consistent with other non-fatal syndromes that could have been fatal? Heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, myocarditis, gambraeus, gambrasis. syndrome, which can be fatal, right? The answer is yes, we're loaded with non-fatal syndromes internally in these databases.

That could have been fatal. They could have been non-missus, but the doctors saved them. Well, it's always amazing to me that they were expressed, like to that point, very early on, we know there's cases of anphylaxis is why we're now taking 15 minutes with every patient, you know, in the waiting room, you're not allowed to go home yet. Right. Then they would say there's no deaths. I was like, how can there be no deaths when you are saying there's an allergic reaction, anaphylaxis, what is known to lead to death all the time?

And some people on Twitter have videos that are doing CPR in the vaccine center. So, yeah, anaphylaxis, serious allergic reactions of which I think together those two numbers are over 50,000. Right. Just to those. Right. But none of them could possibly end up in any other. So the next question is, is it externally consistent? Is it just us?

Is it just our database is quirky? We see the exact same pattern in the yellow card system in the UK, the exact same pattern in the UDRA system in Europe, exact same pattern. So it's externally consistent. The last criterion would be, okay, listen, this is just all observational. Do we have any randomized trial data? Yes, we do. The full Pfizer data set in randomized trials, the count that I know is 21 deaths with Pfizer, 17 deaths with placebo. There's an excess in deaths in Pfizer.

We have clearly fulfilled all of the Bradford Hill tenets of causality. If this was a court of law, we would say clearly on a more probable than not basis, which would be a 51% probability that indeed the vaccine for any given case caused the death. And then we may actually have clear and convincing, which would be an 80% percent. percent probability. And then in some cases where we have autopsies, like in the Gill study, that's beyond a reasonable doubt. Right. So it's clear now. The vaccines are causing death. The question on the table is, is it worth it? And can anybody really be mandated or forced to take a shot that will take their lives?

Incredible point. I think we should end it there because I think you've really laid it out. We are so honored to have you here, but also have you in the world right now at a time where there's just so many moneyed interest, so much bias, a desire to push this vaccine, have this vaccine work. I get it. We all want the miracle cure, but we can't let it cloud our judgment when it comes to the health of people, especially when you're jumping outside of clinical trial space and now rushing it out to the public at large. I know you are one of the busiest human beings I've ever met. When you're out of the field, you seem to answer every phone call. You are there for every news program that wants you. And for your work, we are all truly indebted. And I really pray that you are heard sooner than later by the vast majority of scientists and media

that seem to really be ignoring what is just glaring and blatant and just shining in our face right now. My phone is always open. My email is always open. We need dialogue. We need constructive dialogue. And I think doctors and scientists and government officials

and agencies and countries that have dug in on this, I think it's going to be the hardest thing to come to some recognition that, listen, the vaccines haven't worked out for everybody to at least say that. And, you know, it's been said. Yeah.

Where there is risk, there must be choice. Thank you so much, Dr. Peter McCullough. What a pleasure.