The Joe Rogan Experience - #1747 - Dr. Peter A. McCullough

Episode Date: December 13, 2021

Dr. Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, is a board-certified cardiologist who has testified before committees of the US and Texas Senate regarding the treatment of COVID-19 and management of the ongoing pandemic.

The Joe Rogan Experience. Showing by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day. Well sir, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. I've seen a lot of your testimonies before they were actually taken down. I've seen some of the videos that were yours that were taken down off of YouTube and then I found that very odd that a doctor talking about a medical disease Would would have videos taken down an actual expert would be either testifying or discussing?

Treatments and talking about a disease and have those videos taken down off of YouTube treatments and talking about a disease and have those videos taken down off of YouTube. First of all, if you would, please just state your credentials and tell everybody what you do. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. I'm an internist and cardiologist. I'm also trained in epidemiology. I'm in academic practice in Dallas, Texas. So I see patients about half the time. I saw patients yesterday, drove down today to see you here in the studio. And the rest of my time I spend as an author, an editor. I'm the editor of a major journal in cardiovascular medicine, the former editor of an international journal. I'm the president of a major medical society right now currently, about five years into that position. And I frequently publish. In my field, I study

the interface between heart and kidney disease. I'm the most published person in my field in history. I have over 650 publications in the National Library of Medicine. I imagine that's probably ahead of anybody you've had on the show. They mentioned Paul Merrick. I'm just ahead of Paul Merrick. Peter Peacorey mentioned him in critical care. I'm just ahead of Paul, a lot younger than he is. And in COVID, when COVID hit, I really dropped everything to put all of my academic efforts on this because I saw it as an all hands on deck situation.

Now, when did things start to seem strange to you in terms of the way the information was allowed to be distributed, in terms of the way people were treating patients? And not just that, but the information on how to treat patients was distributed. I didn't see this coming. To tell you the truth, I was pretty happy in life. Medicine was moving along for me and had a very highly ranked position at a major academic medical center and traveled frequently and did all the things we normally do in academic medicine, meeting, interchanging, challenging, being skeptical with one another. That is the lifeblood of academic medicine.

And things were going great in March. This hit. We immediately took efforts we thought was going to hit Dallas. We started looking at things, how to configure our workforces. I went and got a grant, got a large grant to study a prevention approach to protect our workers at our healthcare facility. And I worked with the FDA over a weekend to get an investigation on drug application awarded in my name in order to test a prophylactic approach. And things were going great in March. And I can

tell you, it wasn't but a few weeks in April on these task force calls. I was on routine health system calls once a week and I was on one with the National Institutes of Health. And I asked a question. I said, when are we going to start to treat the problem? People are getting sick out there. They're starting to be hospitalized. Some are dying. When are we going to start to treat patients? It's too late for the hospitals, too late to treat people. It's obvious they're dying in the hospital. We must start early. And you could basically hear a pin drop on these calls. No one had an idea about treating COVID-19 at home. Was there no thought about it? Was there no discussion or was it just not a point of focus? Like what was the problem there? I think it was a point of focus? What was the problem there?

I think it was a grip of fear. Doctors for the first time in their lives felt like they could get the disease themselves if they actually saw and examined these patients. All the discussion was on personal protective equipment, hand sanitizer, negative airflow rooms. It was all about protecting the healthcare workers. There wasn't any focus on sick patients. And after the weeks went by, I became incredibly frustrated. I started communicating

with our Italian colleagues. I said, what's going on? You guys are getting blasted in Milan. Is there anything we can do to treat patients at home and stop these hospitalizations? And were you alone with this concern? Were there other doctors that were joining you with this? And were there treatment protocols that had been put into place that were being tested? There were no treatment protocols that emerged. We started looking at work done by Didier Rialt in Marseille, France, by Vladimir Zelenko in Monroe, New York, and started communicating very early on with the Italians. And I had great relationships with the Italians in Milan. And what we had decided is we had decided on some

principles early on. The first collaboration and my contribution was really to get people together, get the ideas together, and publish. And I had the publication strength that other people didn't. And I had the publication strength that other people didn't and got the first organized ideas together in April, May, June. We submitted our paper July 1st to the American Journal of Medicine, which is one of the highly ranked journals in medicine. And it was published in August. And this is the first publication teaching doctors how to treat COVID-19 with a mult-drug regimen. And the ground rules were this. We knew it was insufficient time for large randomized trials. Those take two to four years. I lead large randomized trials. I've published in the New England Journal of Medicine. I know what this is about. I'm on steering committees. We don't have two to four years. This is a mass casualty situation. We use the

precautionary principle, meaning that this is a mass casualty event. We can't wait. We're looking for drugs with a signal of benefit and acceptable safety. We knew very early on that this viral infection had three components. It was viral replication, cytokine storm or inflammation, and then thrombosis. So we know a single drug wasn't going to handle the problem. No way. It was going to be a multidrug regimen, just like with HIV, just like with hepatitis C, no difference between multi-drugs. So precautionary principle, we used signals of benefit, acceptable safety, drugs in a combination, test, retest, and go.

And so at the time we submitted our paper, Joe, there was about 4,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID-19. I'm sorry, check that. There was 55,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID-19. I'm sorry, check that. There was 55,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID-19 and about 4,000 that could have related to certain drugs, but not a single one put the concepts together on how to treat patients. So this was the first one, and it was published in August. August of 2020, American Journal of Medicine, the title of the paper was The Pathophysiologic Rationale for the Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19. That quickly, after August, spawned the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Home Treatment Guide. So, AAPS, interesting organization. It's independent doctors. They accept no money from pharmaceutical agencies. They've been around

since 1943. They had early on sued the federal government to release the stockpile of hydroxychloroquine. U.S. had the right idea as other countries. They stockpiled hydroxychloroquine. Then there was the problem of it wasn't being released from the stockpile. And so during my development work early in 2020, I got a call from the White House. Peter Navarro called me. He said, listen, McCullough, can you help me get hydroxychloroquine released? Rick Bright and others in the FDA seem to be colluding to block hydroxychloroquine coming out of the stockpile. In Marseille, France,

Didier Rial was working with hydroxychloroquine, and it was over the counter in France. They made a prescription, and they started making it hard for him to use. And then simultaneously in Australia, they had taken hydroxychloroquine, and they had put it up in Queensland as basically an untouchable drug. If a doctor attempted to use hydroxychloroquine to treat a COVID patient in early April, that doctor could be put in jail. So these things started happening early to try to prevent treatment of patients with COVID-19. Why do you think that's the case? And why do you think that hydroxychloroquine would have been effective? Well, 2006 forward, there were studies with hydroxychloroquine that demonstrated that it reduced replication of SARS-CoV-1, the first version of the SARS virus.

Yeah, we talked about that the other day. Wasn't it just chloroquine? Was it chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine? Originally, there was chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine? Originally, there was chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and mefloquine. So there's antimalarials. They're similar in terms of their biochemical property, but they have three mechanisms of action. They increase the lysosomal pH. So when the particle is taken into the cell, it doesn't travel so well to the nucleus. The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine bring in zinc. It's a zinc ionophore. Zinc goes in and actually antagonizes the RNA-dependent polymerase, which is needed for the virus to replicate. And then hydroxychloroquine is a well-known and established anti-inflammatory. We use it in lupus. We use it in rheumatoid arthritis. And it's obviously an

intracellular anti-infective. We use it for the prevention of malaria. Was the problem that... There was a lot of problems with Donald Trump being in office that when he would approve of something or when he would talk about something, people would attack that thing. And hydroxychloroquine became something that he talked of as a cure and talked about as a treatment for COVID. And then it became politicized. And then support for hydroxychloroquine became support for Trump. Would you think that that was accurate? I'd have to look at the timeline. Boy, it was quick because the backlash against hydroxychloroquine was so strong in Brazil and Australia. Why do you think that is though?

No, but the timing, the question is, did it happen before or after Trump said anything? It happened very quickly. You know, through the course of the year, it was extraordinary. Do you know the second largest producer of hydroxychloroquine, the plant, was mysteriously burned down outside of Taipei? It was extraordinary what was going on. Doctors from Africa were telling us that there were some type of mercenary people raiding the pharmacies at night and burning the hydroxychloroquine. Now, this is before the emergency use exemption or the emergency use authorization for the vaccines. The emergency use authorization, in order to have that, you cannot have effective treatments.

In order to have that, you cannot have effective treatments. We have to be careful. The emergency use authorization is a new mechanism or a previously unused mechanism for regulatory pathways of drugs. And my interpretation of it, and everybody's interpretation is fair game since it's pretty loosely written, quite honestly, depends on indication. Everybody's interpretation is fair game, since it's pretty loosely written, quite honestly. Depends on indication. So a vaccine would be indicated for the prevention of COVID-19 illness. Hydroxychloroquine or Bamalivimab or any of these other drugs would be approved for the treatment of COVID. So two separate indications. So the EUA should not be viewed, in my view, as competitive. In fact, it can't because remember, Bamalivimab, the Lilly product,

as well as Remdesivir, the Gilead product, they preceded the vaccines and they didn't preempt the vaccines coming on the market. But Remdesivir had problems of its own, correct? With kidney failure and... Well, Remdesivir was basically a repurposed, failed Ebola drug. And it does have intellectual property ties through Gilead back to the Chinese.

So the Chinese originally were collaborating with us very tightly. I have tons of emails from the Chinese. They were trying to alert us what's going on with COVID-19. Remdesivir came up. It's a polymerase inhibitor. As a general – I told you hydroxychloroquine has three mechanisms of action. You reviewed previously ivermectin, which also has three separate mechanisms of action. Remdesivir is a one-horse show.

It's a single mechanism of action. It inhibits the polymerase. And it unfortunately, as the data have borne out, it's given far too late in the illness, right? So the polymerase is active early in viral replication. So if you gave it on day one, it may actually do something. But if you give it on day 14, by the time someone comes in the hospital, the virus is done replicating at that point in time. And then all it can do is offer toxicity. And you're right, it's a five-day infusion of remdesivir. Early on, we heard about the hepatic toxicity. In my experience, I could never get a patient through five days of therapy because the liver function

test, the AST and ALT, would skyrocket. Now it's become clear it's been associated with acute kidney injury. And the kidney injury is not tolerated in COVID-19 because any retention of fluid makes the oxygen saturation in the lungs far worse. So why do you think there was this demonization of hydroxychloroquine? And why, I mean, do you have a theory as to why they would try to restrict the distribution of it or why they would, if someone wanted to burn down the factories that produce it, why they would do that? It was clear that hydroxychloroquine was the most promising drug that we had for COVID-19. By the way, we tested ritonavir, lopinavir, HIV drugs. They quickly fell to the side. Other drugs were tested, but hydroxy came forward as

the lead agent. And, you know, currently we're up to 300 completed studies with hydroxychloroquine, 32 early treatment studies. And it does have an effect size or an efficacy early in treatment of about 64% globally across the studies. And its toxicity profile is well understood. Hydroxychloroquine, like ivermectin and the other drugs, are already FDA approved. The FDA tells doctors to use drugs off-label. It's in their guidance to us. And actually, they have a... FDA has a piece to patients that was published in 2018 saying, why does your doctor use off-label drugs? And it says, when the doctors are fulfilling an unmet need, i.e. COVID-19.

There's no new drugs for COVID-19. So we use these drugs. It was called clinically indicated, medically necessary, appropriate off-label use of drugs. Hydroxy was the first one up. A giant mistake was to actually place an emergency use authorization on hydroxychloroquine. And the original EUA that was placed on hydroxy, which it didn't need one because it's already on the market, right? It was placed for inpatient use. And then the interpretation was that it was the

hydroxychloroquine was restricted at inpatient use. So once it became restricted at inpatient use, then there was messages saying, listen, don't use it unless somebody's an inpatient. Then when we found out that hydroxychloroquine, like ivermectin, works best early and has less of an effect late, like all the other drugs, because people are too far gone, once those trials were completed, there's five randomized trials of inpatients with hydroxychloroquine as they're about to go on the ventilator. And those five trials are neutral. They don't show harm. They don't show benefit. They're neutral. One of them was the NIH trial. There's only two placebo-controlled trials, by the way. So we've based the entire house on hydroxychloroquine on two placebo-controlled small inpatient trials that didn't have sufficient power to see an effect if indeed it was there,

having said that, they were flat on the outcomes of mortality and progression in the hospital. And so based on that, in June of 2020, the FDA came out across the board and said, based on this, do not use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, period, period, full stop. They never reviewed the data a second time or a third time. Full stop. They never reviewed the data a second time or a third time. And I can tell you as a doctor, the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH are public service agencies to me and you. We don't work for them. They don't issue us rulings. They work for us. And I'm telling you, as a leader in academic medicine, my expectation was monthly reviews from those three entities and the White House Task Force. Matter of fact, the White House Task Force can do it. I needed a monthly report of what drugs are working and

what drugs weren't. We didn't see any of that. Why do you think that is? I talked to Scott Atlas. I presented with him a couple of weeks ago and I had dinner with Scott. He was on the inside. He worked side by side with these people for months. And I said, Scott, what is going on? Scott goes, I did what Peter McCullough would do. I showed up every day with the data. I analyzed things. I had the updates on what's going on at the Penn. Now, Scott was focused on mass contagion control in schools, but he's an academic. He's at Stanford Hoover Institute. I said, yeah. I said, what about the other people on the task force? What about the head of the NIAAD? What about the CDC director? He goes, they showed up with nothing. I said, you got to be kidding me. They're not

analyzing any data? He goes, have you ever seen them come on TV and analyze any studies? I said, no. He thinks that this is a crisis of academic incompetence, believe it or not. Just incompetence, not some sort of a conspiracy to demonize hydroxychloroquine for profit for for some other means to to promote some other treatment or drug it wasn't me but someone in the crowd this was a symposium that was held by pam popper by the way pam dr popper's got a wonderful book out on COVID-19, and so does Scott Atlas. His is about the White House. And someone in that audience asked Scott, he said, listen, do they have another intention? Were they directly trying to squash hydroxychloroquine at the time?

He said, no. He said they had good intentions for the nation. He says they're just incompetent. So is it possible that the demonization of hydroxychloroquine was because Donald Trump supported it? Because I know for like the way I had been hearing about it was hearing about it through him, that he talked about it. It's basically a miracle. Remember all that stuff? He was saying it was a miracle. As I recall, that was late March. I think when it was honestly made illegal in Australia, it was early April. I went on Tucker Carlson. We had the same type of discussion. Tucker says, how did the Australians know to make it illegal so early in April? He goes, that's before all the research was done. Remember, Henry Ford came out with a 3,000 patient study and actually used

in the hospital. It wasn't randomized, but they got consent. It was very carefully done. I was a program director at Henry Ford in the past. I know that institution really well. High quality, top shelf. I was communicating with them. They said, listen, it works. It is clear. It works. This is an unconfounded study. And that was one of the studies that, in fact, we relied upon in order to put hydroxychloroquine in sequence multidrug therapy. That was before the data with ivermectin came in. So ivermectin came in later. And so our update, when we published our update in December of 2020, we brought in ivermectin. The Japanese had told us about favipiravir in the Russian's head. A lot

of people don't know this. There is an oral antiviral approved and used in Japan and Russia and four states in India called favipiravir. That is an oral polymerase inhibitor. So it's like an oral remdesivir. It's very similar to the new drug, molnupiravir. That's an oral polymerase inhibitor. So the antivirals, we actually, by our recommendations, now had three antivirals that we could recommend worldwide for that layer of treatment. Now, antivirals alone are not sufficient and they are not necessary to treat COVID-19. It's very interesting for people to say this. People wanted to put up hydroxychloroquine up on a pedestal and say, listen, if we can knock down hydroxychloroquine, there will be no treatment

for COVID-19 and we can promote some other agenda. or if we can knock down ivermectin. And Dr. Chetty from South Africa and Dr. Berentios from South America, given the politicization of both drugs, because ivermectin in the next wave became the next target of politicization, if you will, if it's politics. But I have to tell you, it's so worldwide. I hate that word politicization. I think it's some other process. But the point is they demonstrated that the syndrome as an outpatient can be treated without those drugs.

They use a different combination of drugs in the sequence. The Chetty method is called the time method where, in a sense, you let the virus make its run on replication and then pick it up with Montelukas, cyproheptadine, inhaled steroids, oral steroids, and then anticoagulants. They treat the back end of the syndrome. Now, again, though, why do you think hydroxychloroquine was demonized? Why do you think that it was, especially so early on in Australia? It can't be universal competence across the board. So one of the things that's interesting about ivermectin is it's not demonized worldwide. It's distributed widely in other countries, and it's shown some effectiveness.

Oh, absolutely. You know, ivermectin now is first line in Japan. It's attributed to crushing the curves in Mexico, in Peru, absolutely crushed the curves in India. We've been in close communication with them. Ivermectin is an interesting drug, and I know you've reviewed it in depth on this show. So I'll leave it to experts like Dr. Khoury and others there. But I use it every day in my practice. I have no problems with Ivermectin. It's safe and effective. It's been a Nobel Prize awarded in 2015 for Ivermectin. But hydroxychloroquine, I think worldwide,

is still the leading drug used to treat COVID-19 just because of its availability, its known dosing. The interesting thing between hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is ivermectin has a range inpatient and outpatient and has a bigger effect size in general. Both of them are still lacking the 20,000 to 40,000 patient clinical trial as a singular drug. And I honestly don't think we'll ever get there. By the way, we're in the multidrug space, so we're never going to go back to single drugs. We're in the multidrug environment. And so there are no large multidrug trials even planned at this point in time.

So we're left with where we are, signals of benefit, acceptable safety. But to finish the thought, ivermectin has a range of effect sizes that are gratifying inpatient and outpatient, diminishing efficacy later. Hydroxychloroquine has really no support on the inpatient side outside the big Henry Ford studies. So hydroxy is largely an outpatient drug. The advantages of hydroxychloroquine are stable dosing, 200 milligrams twice a day. We either go 5, 10, or 30 days. We even have protocols where it's been done that way. Ivermectin, the dosing is 200, 400, or 600 micrograms per kilogram. And the dose intervals

still are yet to be standardized or worked out. So it's interesting. So you see an entire range of doses of nivaractin. Even clinically today, I don't know. Do I go five days? Do I do 10 days? Do I do every other day? I don't know. We use the drugs, and I'm comfortable with that.

I can live with ambiguity in the setting of a crisis. The point is these are very safe and effective drugs. They're useful drugs. I saw a trend. You've asked me three times, so I'm going to answer it. I saw a trend starting in April, May, and June where it became clear that anything we were doing to try to help patients with early treatment was receiving a chill. And the chill was coming through academic institutions, through the medical literature. I think the capper was in June when there was a fraudulent paper published in Lancet on

hydroxychloroquine between Harvard and a company called Surgisphere. And this never happens. Lancet's like the New England Journal of Medicine of the world. I'm the editor of a major journal. I run a journal. I know what it takes. There are editors, associate editors, reviewers. There is pinpoint accuracy. We check references. We check plagiarism. Believe me, it's a tight world out there. They basically published a fraudulent paper on hydroxychloroquine in Lancet in 2020, around June. And they let it hang up there for two weeks stating that hydroxychloroquine was associated with harm when used in patients with COVID-19. Who made this study? It was between one investigator was at Harvard, and it was by a company called Surgisphere

that nobody knew what this company was. It turned out to be a company that literally just dissolved or went away without anybody understanding what it was. So it was a company that was created specifically to do this? Don't know. I don't know. All I can tell you is I looked at the data, Joe, and they had tens of thousands of people they claimed were hospitalized with COVID-19

fairly early in the pandemic. The average age of these people hospitalized was in the low 40s. I looked at this paper in two seconds. I go, this doesn't make sense. We were hospitalizing people in their 80s, not in their 40s. And so to me, it didn't look right.

And then people started writing Lancet saying, listen, this didn't look right. And then people started writing Lancet saying, listen, this doesn't look real. And they started receiving tons of emails. And then Lancet basically retracted it and said, we retracted. No apologies, no explanation. I interpret that. And that occurred right before the FDA said, don't use hydroxychloroquine. It almost looked like it was a step to basically try to bury hydroxychloroquine. It almost looked like it was a step to basically try to bury hydroxychloroquine as a therapy. But why? This is what I still don't understand. What do you think is the motivation and why was it so worldwide? As a doctor, all I can tell you is the medical literature as we're seeing it come about.

There was once the discovery that the spike protein on the virus, the discovery in the medical literature, now that discovery we learned actually occurred years before this, was amenable to neutralization with vaccine-induced antibodies. Once that became abundantly clear in the literature, there appeared to be almost a lockstep developed where people said, uh-huh, that's it. That's the solution. We're going to vaccinate our way out of this problem. We don't even need to worry about how to treat the problem. We don't need to hear about drugs to treat the problem. And the enthusiasm and the hubris for vaccination spread across academic medical centers all over the country. But what about the people that were currently sick, and they were still waiting for the rollout of the vaccine? So if you're talking about August,

the vaccine wasn't rolling out for another four months. And that's just for elderly people. I published an op-ed in August of 2020 in The Hill, a Republican journal for Washington people and others in those circles. And the title of the op-ed was The Great Gamble of the COVID-19 Vaccine Development Program. And what I saw is I saw a total shift on everything for the vaccines. Do you know major clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine were dropped? Ivermectin, things were dropped. We had programs for favipiravir. The Canadians had a big thrust, ivermectin, things were dropped. We had programs for favipiravir. The Canadians had a big thrust for favipiravir. It was dropped. I was the

principal investigator overall for the remachaban program. That was a Japanese product. It was an anticoagulant, antihistamine. It looked very promising. We had great preliminary data. We had Bayer that was going to give us all the doses we needed to treat America. I was on calls between the NIH and the FDA, back and forth, back and forth. I couldn't get any traction in the summer of 2020. It was obvious. In fact, I remember one of the Operation Warp Speed officers telling me, listen, sorry, we have everything organized for the current program. I was also the assistive. I was this kind of second in charge of the Imodulon program, which was a cellular-based vaccine. That was a vaccine similar to the BCG

vaccine, which is given for tuberculosis. We had noticed that regions that were vaccinated for tuberculosis, like Haiti and countries in Central Africa, very little COVID. And so we had the idea. We got a Dutch manufacturer to actually make this cellular-based vaccine. We were going to vaccinate healthcare workers. Same thing. Endless proposals between NIH and FDA got nowhere because it looked like it was already pre-decided that the current set of genetic vaccines were going to move forward. There wasn't going to be any discussion on early treatment. I thought it was a gamble. I was faced with more and more of my patients getting sick with COVID-19. And what I told people all over, I said, listen, I can't let

the virus slaughter my patients. I'm not going to do it. I said, there's got to be something I could do. Early on, I used hydroxychloroquine, other drugs in combination. Once a pure quarry, I give him great credit. His first contribution is actually steroids in the use of COVID-19. So we started using steroids once it was shown to us. We added steroids. The data started coming out anticoagulants. And that's how I put it together. I tell you, Joe, every single one of my high-risk patients I've always treated to prevent hospitalization and death. Of the 800,000 deaths that we are right now, I can tell you 201, they've received either no or inadequate early treatment.

All of them. Go look in a table of baseline characteristics of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and look at what they received before they came to the hospital. Zilch. In fact, there's one paper by Ip and colleagues. The last name is spelled IP, is published from New Jersey early on. And in that paper, back when there was a surge of hydroxychloroquine use in the spring of 2020, 7% of people had received some pre-hospital hydroxychloroquine before they got to the hospital. They had improved survival. Even some pre-hospital treatment really worked. So what happened is when we came up with our treatment protocols, they got to the hospital. They had improved survival. Even some pre-hospital treatment

really worked. So what happened is when we came up with our treatment protocols, the protocol that I mentioned, it sounds like describing what you received as a treatment, you basically received the McCullough protocol. It's now been copyrighted. It's sequenced multi-drug. Once the monoclonal antibodies came in, that became a building block in our program. And we can maybe show the multi-drug protocol on the screen if we can look at it. The point is that any pre-hospital treatment was associated with improved survival because we're taking an edge off viral replication, reducing some of the inflammation, preventing some of the thrombosis. If we let this thing run for 14 days, Joe, the lungs are

filling with blood clots. By the time the oxygen saturation goes down, that's not the virus. The Italians showed us through autopsy studies, very courageous autopsy studies, the lungs are filled with micro blood clots. So in your opinion, if your protocol had been established and distributed worldwide, if people had recognized that this is a way to deal with early treatment, you think that the overall number of COVID deaths would have been significantly reduced? I testified in the U.S. Senate, November 19th, 2020. I told Americans under oath that 50% of the lives at that time could have been saved. We were at about 250,000 deaths based on what I knew. I then testified on March 10th, 2021 in the Texas Senate, sworn testimony. I upped that to 85%

of the deaths could have been avoided. We know that because we carried out studies. We did one with Proctor here in Dallas-Fort Worth, where we demonstrated that even the early primordial protocols before the monoclonal antibodies, when we use drugs in combination, were associated with 85% reductions in hospitalizations and deaths compared to fair comparator groups. And for death, we use the tri-county area and DFW averages age-adjusted. And for hospitalization, we use the Cleveland Clinic calculator, which is a very precise estimate of the risk of hospitalization. Then simultaneously, Derwand and Zelenko showed that from our own New York data. And then Didier Rial showed it from Marseille, France.

So we have three different areas showing early multidrug therapy as an outpatient works substantially. And we've had a giant loss of life, a giant number, millions and millions of unnecessary hospitalizations. And it seemed to me, and I've told Tucker Carlson and many others, it seems to me early on, there was an intentional, very comprehensive suppression of early treatment in order to promote fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization, and death. And it seemed to be completely organized and intentional in order to create acceptance for and then promote mass vaccination. So you believe this is a premeditated thing that they were doing. So they realized that in order to get people enthusiastic about taking this vaccine,

the best way to do that was to not have a protocol for treatment. It's not just my idea. Now it's completely laid out by the book by Dr. Pam Popper, the book recently published by Peter Bragan, COVID-19 and the Global Predators, We Are the Prey. I wrote one of the introductions. Dr. Liefle and Dr. Vladimir Lysenko wrote the other introductions. These books are basically nonfiction. They have a thousand citations in the Bregan book showing how it was coordinated and planned. Now, Bobby Kennedy has his book out, The Real Anthony Fauci, the most mentioned physician in that book. I can tell you that if you want to find the evidence that Moderna was working on the vaccine

before the virus ever emanated out of the lab, if you wanted to find the collusions and the operations between the Gates Foundation and Gavi and Cepi and Pfizer and Moderna and the vaccine manufacturers and the Wuhan lab and the National Institutes of Health and Ralph Baric and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and how all this was organized. If you want to see the Johns Hopkins planning seminar called the Spars pandemic in 2017, where they had a symposium, people showed up, they wrote up their symposium findings, they published this. It says it's going to be a coronavirus. It's going to be related to MERS and SARS. It's going to come over here to the United States. It's going to shut down cities and frighten people. There's going to be confusion

regarding a drug, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. And we're going to utilize all that in order to railroad the population into mass vaccination. It's laid out in the Johns Hopkins Spars Pandemic Training Seminar. The only thing that got wrong was the year. They said it was going to be 2025. Instead, it landed a few years early. How did they organize something like this? And how do you get so many doctors to go along with this? How do you get so many doctors to not speak out against the lack of pre-hospitalization care, the lack of early treatment? We think there's about 500 doctors who knows what's going on in the United States. 500?

500. We've got a million doctors in the United States. We've got half a million nurse practitioners and physician assistants. I can tell you the nurses are more awake than the doctors. Why is that? The doctors appear to be like many of our leaders. By the way, all the leaders of the major churches, every single one of them, the major religious branches are under the spell. Every major global international leader is under the spell. We're in what's called a mass formation psychosis. This is very important. I give credit to Dr. Matthias Desmet in the University of Ghent in Belgium,

and recently Dr. Mark McDonald, psychiatrist from L.A. Mark McDonald's got a new book out, The United States of Fear, describing how the mass psychosis developed. What your listeners need to know is a mass psychosis is when there is a groupthink that develops that's so strong that it leads to something horrific. And the examples are these mass suicides that occur in these religious cults. The example is Nazi Germany, when people walk into gas chambers and were gassed. These horrific things. And four elements here. It's very important, Joe. First, there must be a period of prolonged isolation, lockdowns.

Number two, there must be a withdrawal of things taken away from people that they used to enjoy. That's happened. Number three, there must be constant, incessant, free-floating anxiety. All this news cycle, all the deaths and the hospitalizations, more variant mutant strains, everything, people becoming scared over and over again. And the last thing, number four, the capper. The capper is there must be a single solution offered by an entity in authority. And this case is clear. Worldwide, the solution was vaccination. Everybody must take the vaccination. It's not a U.S. program. It's not a European. It's everywhere. And you know what,

Joe? It doesn't matter what vaccine it is. It could be ChinaVac, CoronaVac. It could be Novavax. It could be Pfizer, Moderna, J&J. It's interesting that it doesn't even matter what vaccine it is. It's just take a vaccine, take any vaccine. And so what mass psychosis says is number four, the solution. There's no limit to the absurdity of the solution. Other countries have been much more ruthless in their enforcement of vaccinations, and it's kind of opened a lot of people's eyes as to what's possible. When you look at some of the European countries, the way Germany's handling it, even the way New Zealand's handling it, and Australia, for sure, people are terrified when they're seeing these places that they thought of as being as free as the United States falling into this sort of totalitarian regime situation where the government is telling the people what they must do

and literally checking everyone for papers. And people don't seem to think that this is a problem. A large percentage of people don't seem to think this is a problem. They think it's good because we need to vaccinate everyone. But they don't have an issue with what has historically always been a problem with people. When you give governments extreme amounts of power over people, they tend to like to use that power, and they don't ever want to give it up.

And we've opened the door to these new levels of power for the government. And people say, well, that's important because we have to do it because we're in the middle of a pandemic and we have to treat these people. Because some people are silly and they believe conspiracy theories and they don't want to take the adequate treatment and that's going to get everybody else sick, which doesn't really make sense. But the whole thought behind it is that this is temporary, but it's never temporary. Power lost is never regained. All freedom's lost

unless you fight for them. they're kind of lost forever. And so these people that are giving into these green passes, and they're seeing that in Israel now, right? Where Israel used to be, you have two vaccines, two shots, and then you get the green pass and you're considered fully vaccinated, you can enter society. Now they're saying, no, now you have to have a third. And now they're considering a fourth, which is wild. And there's no end in sight. You know, if it was about COVID, I would say that the world would have adopted something when I presented to the American people and the Senate testimony in November of 2020. I told America, listen, there's four pillars to

pandemic response. We should have always seen teams of doctors in Washington. I would have went if they called me. Matter of fact, I emailed them. They know who I am. We would have seen teams of doctors in Washington working on four pillars. The first pillar is reduce the spread of infection. Terrific. Everything we can to improve airflow. We know it's spread by the air. It's not a hand infection. This focus on hand sanitizers, like we're all getting infected hands. It's pretty early on though, isn't it? It's not even, no. You still go on DFW Airport. There's hand sanitizers every six feet. You know, there was pictures of people spraying football stadiums with sanitizer. It's not spread on football seats. It's not a contact organism.

It's not Ebola. It's not, you know, it's not clostridium difficile. It's spread in the air. But if we would have focused on contagion control, that was reasonable. That would have been terrific. The most effective contagion control, by the way, is 2021 data, is actually using oral nasal virucidal therapy, far and away. Can you explain that, please? Yeah, oral nasal virucidal therapy is basically using, you know, virtually anything kills the virus. Any disinfectant kills the virus. Iodine kills it on contact.

So if we use dilute betadine, and so if you take a betadine over the counter, it's a brown bottle. We use it to sterilize wounds in the ER. Bite it in any pharmacy and take two teaspoons and six ounces of water. Take a nasal spray or a syringe bulb and spray it up your nose, snort it back to the points and back your throat and spit it out. I'm sorry that's gross for your audience, but you got to get it up there and back. That adequately decontaminates the nose. Then gargle with the rest of it, spit it out, finish up with some scoprolisterine. Doing that after you return from a day out with contact with people, especially close contact in close rooms. I'm talking public restrooms, small conference

rooms. You have to be in contact with someone for about three hours, honestly, in a small room with no airflow to get it, or go into a loaded room like a public restroom or tight places at small stores, that the bottom line, that's where people get it from. Once it gets home, 85% of it spreads in the house. But using oral nasal viral cytotherapy is such a huge advance that in a randomized trial by Chowdhury and colleagues from Bangladesh, 303 patients randomized to this viral cytotherapy, which is all topical, no prescription drugs, nothing else needed, versus a control group, which was just warm water, 303 patients in each group, it dramatically reduced the PCR positivity by day three. It knocked it down from 303 down to 24

patients still positive. Those who got the control, they're still all positive. And it markedly reduced by easily 75% chances of having progressive disease, ending up the hospital or death. And it's enormously preventive. And now we learned we can use hydrogen peroxide, dilute hydrogen peroxide with some Lugol's iodine. And believe it or not, the dentists in the American Dental Association guidelines use for cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus gingivitis, they use sodium hypochlorite.

That's actually dilute bleach. Turns out it just takes a few drops of bleach in some household water. That's for the mouth. We typically don't use it in the nose, around the eyes. But remember when President Trump mentioned bleach and everybody had a big horse laugh on that? It turns out he just couldn't articulate. Someone was giving him the ADA recommendations for antiviral therapy for the mouth. The point is, pillar number one should have been contagion control. It should have been focused on the nose and the mouth. We learned it early.

We learned it late. But if we could have used any of that early, it would have helped. Randomized trials of masks didn't work. Hand sanitizers and spraying football stadiums. It was even in Europe. They were spraying the sidewalk. That doesn't work. Do you think the masks have any effect on limiting the spread? You know, every time I go on

Fox News, Laura Ingraham always tees up some comment on masks. And I just, masks are not my signature focus, right? And the reason being, if two people don't have the virus and they wear a mask, can it possibly do anything? Of course not. So in randomized trials of masks, the vast majority of people don't have the virus. So if you put masks on people who don't have the virus, it's not going to do anything. Mask expert, Mr. Steven Petty, who I've presented with, he is a world's expert on masks. He's an engineer. With a typical mask that someone wears, do you know how much air moves around the mask? It's 18% moves around the mask. Of course it doesn't work.

Masks only filter out about three microns. The virus is one micron. So the point is, what do masks do? Do I wear a mask? Sure. I'm a doctor. I go into the hospital. I'm in the cath lab.

I'm in close contact with people, dentists, hairdressers, people at close range wear a mask. It may stop a big sneeze. It may stop partially some big emanation of inoculum. But we shouldn't have had, you know, the airtime and the public health focus on masks. I think if we would have taken all of that energy and put it on treatment protocols and update on drugs, we would have been better off. But that's contagion control. Pillar number two is early treatment. We've talked about that. Pillar number three, which is really important, is trying to improve the hospital treatments. And we should have had monthly updates from our federal officials and our agencies about where we are with early treatments. And for sure, our local medical schools should have all had early treatment updates once a month. Come on. The medical centers are facing their Super Bowl. Do you know today in America, we have 300 medical schools, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Mayo Clinic. Not a single hospital has their own unique protocol to treat COVID-19.

They don't have a single original idea. Do you know that none of those organizations, Joe, have ever treated a COVID patient to prevent hospitalization and death? I told Tucker Carlson, he almost fell out of his seat. I said, yeah, they don't have a single idea how to treat COVID-19 patients outside the hospital. Suddenly, our best and our brightest are out of intellectual ammo. Suddenly, our best and our brightest are out of intellectual ammo. I want to talk more about this mass psychosis. Do you believe that this is an organized mass psychosis?

All these steps that you put about isolation, taking away basic freedoms, and then offering up one individual single solution to this. And this is what has sort of fueled this. What's very obvious to people that there's a lot of people that are not acting well. They're not acting normal. They are attacking people that seem to be ideologically opposed to whatever is going on. And they're marching in lockstep with the authoritarians. And they're doing it like you would, like Stockholm syndrome or something. It's very strange. Do you think this is an organized thing? Do you think this is just what happens when you have a massive group of people that are dealing with an incredibly tense and anxiety-ridden event like a pandemic where no one knows what the

solution is? And a lot of people are terrified of just everyday life. And then all of a sudden, something like this comes along, and those are the people that are more easily manipulated, and they fall in line together because there's sort of a tribal aspect to this type of thinking and behavior. And you find support from other people that are equally afraid. You know, the mass psychosis clearly is focused on pillar number four. That was the last pillar that I presented to the Americans in November of 2020 in the U.S. Senate. This is before the vaccines came out. And that is vaccination. Listen, vaccination should play a role. I've taken all the vaccines. My kids have taken all the vaccines. I went to India. I took extra vaccines. So, you don't have any problem with vaccines. What had happened is, I want to say by April of 2020, it was clear that the vaccine

development program was far more advanced than we ever could have imagined. How could we have actually figured out the neutralizing antibodies and have the sequence to the spike protein and have all that ready to go? I have already figured out how to load it into messenger or adenoviral DNA. How do we actually get that to run? Remember, there are 24 of these platforms. They had all previously failed, except for pterosan. A lot of people don't know this. There is a messenger RNA product. I can use that as a cardiologist called pterosan. It's a small interfering messenger RNA that we use to treat amyloidosis. But the previous trials of gene transfer technology, which is what these are,

were normally to replace a missing protein. So for instance, I'm a cardiologist. I treat a condition called Fabry's disease. It affects the heart. There was a messenger RNA program to basically replace the missing enzyme, alpha-galactosidase. But in this case, to take these platforms and say, you know what? These are ready to go. We're just going to insert the code for the spike protein, which is now what we've learned, is the lethal part of COVID-19. The ball of the virus, the nucleocapsid, that beach ball is relatively harmless. What causes all the damage is the spine or the spicule on the surface. Everyone knows a cartoon of the virus.

That's called the spike protein. 1,200 amino acids, about a dozen glycosylation sites. It has some homology, by the way, to HIV. And so a lot of people don't know this, but one of the original antigenic vaccines that was tested in Australia exposed that HIV epitope. It turned everybody in the trial HIV positive who took a COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. These young people were outraged. And so this was on the internet. It was quickly suppressed. But if anybody wants to type this in right now, you can actually learn that one of the

very first vaccines tried in Australia actually turned everybody HIV positive. They didn't have HIV, but there was a molecular trickery that was going on. Having said this, now when we look back, when we look at the books, Popper, Bragan, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Atlas, it's pretty clear that this was planned. And it was planned, and the elements of the mass psychosis are clearly planned. In fact, the elements of the mass psychosis are in the Johns Hopkins planning document. They had that up on their website since 2017. Once the pandemic hit in March of 2020, they actually

published it in the peer-reviewed literature. You can see how it was all done. That's how the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health had the death count up on CNN and MSNBC and Fox as a scoreboard. Do you remember the scoreboard was number of cases and deaths? How do they get that, Joe? Come on, I fill out death certificates every day. Do you know the average death certificate comes to me six weeks after the death? How are they getting these deaths, instantaneous numbers, picking up every day? It was extraordinary what Americans saw. So how were they getting that? To this day, we don't know. To this day, we don't know. All we know on the CDC website is the CDC website says that about 90% of the deaths that have occurred with COVID-19 have been associated with significant comorbidities, meaning other major problems that were in the proximal pathway to death. The Italians have just recoded all of their deaths. They say 97% of the Italian deaths,

meaning someone had heart failure, advanced lung disease, kidney disease, on dialysis, advanced cancer. A good example was Colin Powell. Colin Powell just died recently. He was in his 80s. He was fully vaccinated, and he died of multiple myeloma, but he was also COVID positive. And so the question is, how much of the COVID did he die of, and how much of the multiple myeloma, but he was also COVID positive. And so the question is, how much of the COVID did he die of and how much of the multiple myeloma? Larry King died the same way. We'd have to go far to find well-known personalities where this happened. The point is the deaths were coming in quickly. It may be the fact that the deaths, the vast majority of them occurred in the hospital. So we didn't have to have this prolonged outpatient death certificate signing and things were mainlined from the hospital. We know President Trump's authorization for the testing became the way that the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

got the scoreboard for positive tests. And that executive order said, all the laboratories and all the departments of public health doing testing will report positive tests to the center, the Johns Hopkins Center. And they did. That means Quest, LabCorp, Abbott, all of them started to have a flow of tests. Interestingly, there was no reconciliation for duplicates. So if you would have went to one testing center and put your name as Joe Rogan, and you went to another testing center and put your name as Joe Rogan, and you went to another testing center and said your name is, you know, Jose Rogan or something, you'd come in as two different tests. There was never any reconciliation. And we understood over time that the number of tests

positive was in a sense padded. It was padded by duplicate tests. It was padded by this idea of asymptomatic testing. So one of the big discoveries in 2020 is that the virus is not spread asymptomatically. It's only spread from sick person to susceptible person. This is a very important. Two major papers, one by Cao from China, one by Madewell, nailed this down. Once we learned that asymptomatic testing wasn't happening, it became clear. The Swedes were right. Scott Atlas was

right. The only thing we needed to do was just keep sick people at home. They were the only people who needed a quarantine. And well, people could go do what they were going to do. Somebody can't walk into a workplace with no symptoms and give the virus to somebody else. It doesn't happen. The problem is with that is that a lot of people are not honest about their symptoms. We had a guy at a bar that we work at, that we do stand-up at. He showed up. He's like, I got to, you know, he's just saying, guy's got a headache.

And someone said, what do you mean you have a headache? And he goes, I've just got this headache. And he goes, have you been COVID tested? And he goes, oh, I don't want to test positive. Then I'll have to take off work. And they went, what? And so they tested him. He was positive. And they sent him home. But that guy was going to greet customers at a comedy club. Valid point. Valid point. The new thinking really has to be either we don't

trust people and we asymptomatically test everybody. But the World Health Organization, as of June 25th, says no asymptomatic testing. The FDA has never cleared these tests for asymptomatic testing. The CDC doesn't give a green light to do this. Asymptomatic testing, and people like you and me, we just walked in, we have asymptomatic testing, that if we get a positive, the chances that that positive is false positive is 97%. 97%. And that is if you're asymptomatic. Completely asymptomatic. And to make matters worse, so many of us have already had COVID-19. And now our CDC admits, finally through a Freedom of Information Act, lead attorney Aaron Seery

pressed the CDC and said, listen, you're saying you can get COVID twice. Show us a case. Show us a case. Pressed, pressed, pressed. Finally, the CDC director came out and said, you know what? You can't get it twice. We've never had a single But I have a friend that got it twice. What you have is you have a friend who thinks he had it twice. What happened is on one or more occasions, it's a false positive test or he actually had the dead virus that he's carrying forward. Somebody in my family circles had COVID-19, for sure had it, got sick. That person tested positive intermittently 17 times. Yeah, but this wasn't just a test positive. He got sick, he recovered, and then about seven,

eight months later, he got sick again, tested positive again, and had a much milder case of it, but still got COVID twice. Yeah, it wasn't a second case. This is what's happened. For sure? Yeah. There's about 100 purported cases like this in the literature. I've looked at them all. What happens is, is we would need a rigorous definition of, put it this way, if you could get COVID-19 twice, we would have seen hundreds of millions of cases. Do you know how susceptible the elderly are? This would have swept through the nursing homes over and over again. We would have seen grandmothers on the ventilator 16 times. I'm

telling you right now, you can't get it twice. The criteria are, and this is the reason why the CDC says it can't happen. The criteria would be that you have a positive PCR test at a low cycle threshold, less than 28, and you're positive on the antigen immunoassay test, so the nucleocapsid is there, and you do sequencing, and you can actually find the virus sequence there. Now, you do that on two occasions. You do that on one occasion, and someone's really sick and has the characteristic signs and symptoms, and you do it again six months later, then you actually have the first case of recurrent infection of COVID-19. There's nothing that meets that rigor. To make matters worse, the CDC has now admitted that the methodology they used for the PCR originally,

the CDC methodology that was distributed to all the departments of community health and where the laboratory-derived assays for the health systems in the early parts of the pandemic cannot distinguish between flu and on COVID-19. So invariably, someone had flu on occasion one and tested positive and was pretty sick. And then they had COVID-19 the second time. Or vice versa. Right. So if that's the case, why is there this resistance to the idea that people have natural immunity? All roads lead to the vaccine. All roads lead to the vaccine. Why is there no single Harvard protocol or Mayo Clinic protocol to treat COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization and death? clinic protocol to treat COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization and death. Why? We're two years into it. You mean Harvard won't treat a single patient at home to prevent a hospitalization?

I said at the very beginning, I said there's two bad outcomes. There's hospitalization and death. That's it. If you could get through this at home and not end up in the hospital, the whole world could get through this. And you know, not a single leader could articulate that goal of avoiding these hospitalizations. Not a single leader. Trump couldn't say it. Biden couldn't say it. Marcon couldn't say it. Nobody could actually state the problem. This is what Scott Atlas is saying. There is a global ineptitude where they can't even state what the problem is. If you get to, you go to any one of these CEOs of these health systems and say, what are you doing to prevent hospitalizations and deaths with COVID-19 as a composite outcome? They draw a blank. Now, if all roads lead to the vaccine,

what is motivating all roads to lead to the vaccine? Why is everyone falling in lockstep? Why aren't there people who are looking at this logically and saying, you know, even if you get vaccinated, there's a good chance that you could have a breakthrough, particularly now. There was a while back where they were saying that breakthroughs are incredibly rare. They're not incredibly rare at all anymore. I know 12, 13 people that have gotten COVID post-vaccination, and I know a few of them that were hospitalized. COVID post-vaccination, and I know a few of them that were hospitalized. Trying to avoid hospitalization should be a priority for everybody, including people that are already vaccinated. Why is there no emphasis on this? What's the motivation? Like, what is the

motivation for All Roads to Lead to the Vaccine in this binary approach that it's only the vaccine that can help us. Well, let's be fair to the vaccines. And I think this is important to mention. I was under oath, testified in the U.S. Senate, and they're asking, the very last question they asked our panel was, do you have any problems with the vaccines? Time frame, November 19th, 2020. None of us said a word because all we had was press releases. Joe, we learned that the vaccines out of the clinical trials over a two-month period had 90% vaccine efficacy, 90%. Now, what that meant is if you had a clinical trial and you had 18,000 people in each group, that vaccine versus placebo, that when you looked at the number of cases, there would be 100 cases of COVID in the control group, placebo group, and 10 cases in the vaccine group. That's 90%

vaccine efficacy, 100 versus 10, just giving sample numbers. That looked terrific. But interestingly, wait a minute, 18,000 in each group, what's the problem? That meant that less than 1% of people got COVID. Now, during that timeframe, our labs were recording 5%, 10%, 15% COVID positivity rates. How did the vaccine trials recruit people with a less than 1% chance of getting COVID? How did they find these people? Well, I can tell you, we were a vaccine clinical trial center, the most fastidious people, doctors, other people. They were very careful. People, upper middle class WebExers who were just on WebEx, they were scared. They were in the vaccine clinical trials. They recruited people who never got challenged with COVID. They never even got

exposed to COVID. So the vaccine clinical trials were not a good test run of if you got exposed to COVID, what would happen? So then the vaccines rolled out. And we had December, people started enrolled, young doctors in the hospital took it. I watched it happen. Then they went to nursing home, seniors, January, February. And we got to February. I was like, wait a minute, where's the report? White House task force or the NIH or CDC or FDA, they need to come on TV and give us a report. How many people have been vaccinated? How many people have failed the vaccine and get hospitalized anyway? And how many people have been injured with the vaccine? Or what's the side effects? No report. So we got to February and there was no report with the vaccines. It turns out that we actually never learned what the

vaccines were doing on efficacy until much later. Now, once we had August, September, and October, this is much later, we had data come in from arrears from the spring, and we learned the following. A paper by Self and colleagues from the CDC, less healthy people don't take the vaccines, and the hospitalization is confounded by the fact of differential testing, meaning that once somebody takes a vaccine, the hospitals don't test them for COVID when they come in for gallbladders or they come in for other things. If someone doesn't take the vaccine, the hospital is testing them, right? And we know people generate false positives. So the differential testing exaggerated the effect of the vaccines. But even with that exaggerated effect, I want to give your listeners a fair evaluation of efficacy. And what we know is that this first report that came in by self from MMWR, March through August of 2021, the vaccine efficacy for Moderna was 92%,

for Pfizer was 77%, and Johnson & Johnson 68%. Now, that's biased, and it's loaded with a lot of bias, but I'm telling you, the vaccines did do something in terms of reducing hospitalization and death. Now, in the caveat, they say, listen, we didn't have data on Delta, and it looks like the vaccine efficacy dropped off after six months. Now, 1040 came in in JAMA, and this was published in the fall of this year, and they had an 85% protection overall against hospitalization. But again, don't forget, the hospitalization could be influenced by this testing bias. But again, don't forget the hospitalization could be influenced by this testing bias. But if we look at the data in figure three, which is dealing with, in this paper, people who really had COVID and did they progress onto the mechanical ventilator or did they get worse?

And the answer was there was a 59% protection against getting worse. But mortality in the 1040 paper, it's one of the best vaccine papers, mortality for those who took the vaccine and were hospitalized with COVID was 6.3%. And mortality for unvaccinated, and they just took their chances with COVID in the hospital, was 8.6%. And that p-value was not statistically significant. So there was a mortality benefit, but it wasn't statistically significant. And so the last paper we have to point to is by Cohn and colleagues. Cohn from the VA, 780,000 individuals, 780, 225 individuals in the VA. And they basically demonstrated that age over 65 for non-COVID related deaths, the vaccine is associated with a reduction in non-COVID related deaths, meaning people who take the vaccine are less likely to die because they, by selection bias, they had about a 1% overall absolute risk reduction in death. And then the COVID protection from death due to COVID or death with COVID was about a 1.5% risk reduction. That's it?

So 1%? Absolute risk reduction. That's Cohn and colleagues age over 65. Now, importantly, what happened is in September, the vaccine efficacy fell off a cliff for all the vaccines. And what happened in September was very important. September was about the six-month anniversary of everybody because most everybody took the vaccines early. And September was also the first month of fully shading in on Delta. We got to 99% Delta, which basically many papers show is resistant to the effect of the vaccines. So this is much smaller than any of the reports you ever read online or see on television. This is a much smaller avenue of advocacy. Would you agree to that? Well, I'm presenting the data in terms of absolute risk reduction from the survival curves. There's a way of presenting it called relative

risk reduction, which gives a much bigger number. But what a lot of people want to know, people on the street want to know, people on the street want to know, listen, what's my chances dying of COVID? And I can just give you the number for U.S. veterans. Let's have people listen to this. And this is after about four to six months of taking the vaccine. Those who are positive veterans over age 65 who are COVID positive and died with COVID-19, let's flip it around to survival, Joe. To survive COVID-19, the number was basically, I want to be exact since fact checkers will be was 87% for those who took the vaccine. And for those who did not take the vaccine, the number was about 78%. So that number, yeah, that number was basically in the mid part, it's about 1.5%.

And then it extends out at the end of the survival curves to about a 10% absolute difference. So the vaccine efficacy drop off of six months, is this for everyone or is this for people? There was a study that was recently highlighted showing the difference between the way obese people process antibodies. Is this for everyone? I mean, is it more effective in healthier individuals? Is it more long lasting? Yes. The best paper to look at that is by Nordstrom and colleagues, Sweden, 1.6 million pairs of vaccinated, unvaccinated. The outcome is symptomatic COVID-19 infection, not hospitalization and death. Moderna starts out at a month at 92% vaccine efficacy.

I'm sorry, Pfizer starts out at 92% vaccine efficacy, and it drops off to 23% after six months. Moderna starts out at 96%, and it drops down to 69%. And now we have 22 studies showing that the vaccine efficacy basically markedly diminishes after six months. That's the reason why all the authorities have agreed we have to give boosters at six months. And the groups that do the worst, and this has been published, are those who are immunocompromised. So the immunocompromised people worry about them the most, but the bottom line is they get the least benefit of the vaccines.

They get the least benefit of the vaccine. They're the people we worry about the most, and they're also the people that we don't criticize their choices, because particularly the obese ones. We don't say, which I think they should have said right off the bat. Well, interesting. Immunocompromised by the CDC wouldn't include the obese. So it includes people with blood disorders, chronic leukemia, includes those transplant recipients. The most common category that your listeners would fall into is immunocompromised. There are people on chronic corticosteroids. So people with severe adult anesthesia, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, that would be immunocompromised.

You're talking about general comorbidity categories like diabetes, obesity, heart and lung disease, kidney disease, chronic cancer. Those are basically risk factors for hospitalization and death with COVID. And there's a reason why, by the way, particularly obesity. You know what it is? Yeah, we talked about it, but please explain it because I can't repeat it. The virus, SARS-CoV-2, the virus, has got two very unique things as a viral syndrome. The first is this cytokine storm or this hyperimmune activation. And that cytokine storm leads with the most unique cytokine, interleukin-6. We've never seen this before. Interleukin-6 is produced by human fat cells. So the virus triggers human fat cells to produce a ton of interleukin-6, which itself is

damaging. And so those who are fat have a much greater depot and an ability to produce the cytokine storm. That's the reason why obesity is an exquisite risk factor for mortality. It's because of the unique cytokine signature of SARS-CoV-2. The other thing that's unique about the infection is blood clotting. We've never seen an infection that causes blood clotting. Blood clotting is in the final pathway to death with this virus because of the spike protein. The spike protein attaches to sialic acid residues on the surface of red blood cells. It causes micro red blood cell aggregation. It trips off the coagulation cascade in an interesting way.

And we can see this in patients where we see a D-dimer level that's elevated. And doctors learned to actually, as a signature of COVID-19, the D-dimer levels. When they're elevated, it actually means this coagulation process is likely going on. So the compromise of the immune system that comes about from obesity, is it scalable? Is it like if you are 100 pounds overweight, is it much worse than if you're 40 pounds overweight? It's clearly scalable. So that's something that should have been discussed publicly along with the drugs, along with the possible early treatment options. Well, you know, if we could have, in a perfect world, if we addressed all four pillars of the pandemic response, if we did what Bangladesh did and just started actually doing the oral nasal hygiene approach.

Is that what they did right away? That's where the trials were done. They're almost down to zero COVID. There's 160 million people. They're on top of each other over there. They're down to almost zero COVID because they've got the discipline down to when they go out in public settings. When you went out with that guy with a headache, when you came home, just do the oral nasal decontamination, you would have knocked down the viral particles enough where your body probably would have fought off the rest and you don't get the syndrome.

Do you know my patients right now, when they're coming down with COVID, we actually blast with the dilute palvidone iodine in the nose and the mouth. We blast every four hours while awake, and we knock down the viral load, particularly with Delta. Delta has 251 to 1,000 times viral load in the nose. So it's replicating like mad. And we can knock it down and reduce the amount of viral inoculum in the human body. I personally had COVID, Joe. It was in the fall of 2020. I didn't know about this. It baked in my nose and mouth for about three days. And I sat there. I did nothing. I was scrambling for oral drugs. Why didn't I knock it down with some type of treatment in the nose? You know, chronic sinusitis patients have been using neti pots or they've been using saline rinses. All we have to do is add a little peroxide or a little bit iodine to that and knock down the viral load.

I could have had a much milder syndrome. So that would be one way to approach it that you feel is very effective. This other protocol that you have established is another great way to approach it. Are there people that are in agreement or disagreement with you, that you, like disagreement in particular, that you respect and you see some merit in what they're saying? Well, the disagreement would be don't treat patients. That's it. Think about it. Well, the disagreement would be don't treat patients. That's it? Think about it. Well, when I published the paper in the American Journal of Medicine, so I was the first person in the world to put a stake in the ground saying that we can treat COVID-19 at home and prevent hospitalization. Has anyone said to you don't treat patients?

I mean, so— The letters of the editor came in, Joe. There was about six of them. They came in from Duke, from Menash, from I think McGill in Montreal, from Europe, South America. They said, Dr. McCullough, you can't treat COVID patients. I was like, what? They said, you can't treat, you don't have enough evidence. You can't do this. You could cause harm. And I, you know, my, at the, well, you know, Joe Alpert is the editor of American Journal of Medicine. He let this go on.

Every letter came back and I said, overcome your fear and let's break the grip of therapeutic nihilism and let's start treating patients to prevent hospitalization and death. And in our circles, there is no discussion. You know, I was in the endowed lecture at Harvard two years ago. It was fanfare, me and my wife, all these pictures, everything is wonderful. Do you know not a single institution has invited me to lecture on the early treatment of COVID-19? Remember, Harvard doesn't treat people. Neither does Mayo Clinic. Neither does UCLA.

Neither does the medical school here in Austin. They don't treat a single patient. They have nothing to offer. When Didier Rialt set up his treatment program in Marseille, he put out tents outside the medical center there. They tried to shut him down. He goes, listen, I'm going to treat patients because they're sick. Marseille, if you've ever been there, it's all these retired older French citizens, pretty well-to-do. They're down on the French Riviera. They were getting sick with COVID-19. He opened up an outpatient treatment center and he started treating people and started gathering his data. They tried to shut him down. They took hydroxychloroquine.

They made it over the counter. If he was, you know, there's been doctors, there was a doctor arrested in South Africa for using ivermectin, for crying out loud. You know, this is, there has been suppression. And where we know things really got obtuse is when we came to the monoclonal antibodies. These monoclonal antibodies, they really work. And let me tell you what. We've got three terrific ones now. We have Lili is back with a combination of bamalivimab and ertesivimab, which is wonderful. We have Regeneron, which Trump received, which is a combination of Imdermab and

Carisivimab. And now GSK, since May, has Sotirivimab. Sotirivimab is actually antibodies directed against a glycoprotein, so it's going to be basically resistant to any mutant strains. These antibodies in general, all the studies show, given early, have at least a 50%, if not an 85% reduction in hospitalization and death. I took them. I use them every day, Joe. I took it when I got sick, and I think it's one of the primary reasons why I got better so quickly. And you got, and what Aaron Rodgers got, and what President Trump got, is basically how I drew it up for America and the world. And you know that science is going the right way when people like myself and Pierre Corey and Didier Rialto and what have you were

working independently. And we come up with the same conclusions. You know, Pierre and I did not recircle, did not actually come to much later. And that's exactly what you want to see. You want to see external validity, people working independently coming up with the same ideas. So what is the resistance to the monoclonal antibodies? The resistance has been, in a sense, an opacity to them. Meaning, I testified in the Texas Senate in March 2021, and right ahead of me was this wonderful doctor, and she talked about her 90-year-old father who was saved by monoclonal antibodies. And I sat through six hours of self-congratulatory testimony by all these department heads across Texas. They were talking about hand sanitizer and doing evaluations and vaccines. I got up there, and I told Kwokwart,

who is the chair of the committee, he's right here in Austin. I said, where are these monoclonal antibodies? Where are they? Where is the 1-800 number so we can access these monoclonal antibodies? Where is the list of treatment centers where these monoclonal antibodies are? How come we don't have billboards up there telling the poor seniors where the monoclonal antibodies are. Do we stock these in nursing homes where people are getting sick? Do we even know? There is a hide-and-go-seek going on with these monoclonal antibodies. And I can tell you, in Florida, there's been a big push to use monoclonal antibodies, and they've had the same problem, that there was this, in a sense,

lack of government prioritization for the monoclonal antibodies. When was the last time you saw a feature in the news on these monoclonal antibodies? There's no word of them. They're wonderful products. Operation Warp Speed. Are they limited in any way? No. Are they limited? How are they produced? Well, they're produced in the same technology that we would produce Humira and Remicade. All these are called fully humanized monoclonal antibodies.

And so they're produced in a method where once there's a fully humanized mouse and the code for an antibody is created in the mouse, that gene is transferred into what's called a Chinese hamster ovary suspension. And that actually produces massive quantities of the antibody. That's how they're all produced. And anybody who's taken Humira, anybody who's taken Repatha or Praluent, they know what I'm talking about. And the point is, they're safe and effective. In medical economics in 2020, it was already disclosed in a table that we had already purchased 100 million doses of these. And we had on order 500 million doses. There are plenty of monoclonal antibodies. My point is the government's almost on purpose and the local and federal state

agencies are not featuring these. And let me tell you, I gave a lecture, a symposium for doctors in Amarillo. And doctor symposium, Amarillo Country Club, within the last month, one doctor in the room was wearing a mask. None of us were wearing a mask. And I went over early treatment. I went over all the science we talked about today. And he goes, listen, I'm the public health director here. And I want to tell you something, that 85% of people dying of COVID-19 in our county are unvaccinated. I wanted to make that statement. And I said, listen, you're running the monoclonal antibody program here. How many of these deaths

receive monoclonal antibodies? He goes, well, I don't know that. I said, listen, the vaccines aren't treatment. The vaccines aren't treatment. The monoclonal antibodies are treatment. treatment. The monoclonal antibodies are treatment. Do you see the absurdity of this? This is the mass psychosis. He is completely and totally focused on the vaccine, yet he's got the most important tool right in front of him. What I said in the Texas Senate, I said the most important thing is the sick person right in front of you. That's it. At any given time, it's way less than 1% of people are sick with COVID-19. Focus on the sick person, and then that's how we win the battle against COVID-19. Do you think that it's possible that people will wake up to the idea that there should be many approaches to this as the vaccines wane in efficacy and as people start to become more

resistant to boosters? Then maybe they'll look at these things. Because what's confusing to people is that, well, if this is all some sort of a plot by the pharmaceutical companies to make exorbitant amounts of money, why aren't they trying to make exorbitant amounts of money off the monoclonal antibodies, which are also expensive? Yeah, I tell you, it's a great argument. We'll see, you know, molipiravir, which is the Merck drug, which I think is going to be modestly effective. The registrational trials finally came in about a 30% effect size, so a little less than hydroxy or ivermectin. Ivermectin as the oral drug probably has the best efficacy of the three. And I think molipiravir is going to be similar to papipiravir. We will have to see, but the point I'm making is that, listen, the monoclonal antibodies

were before the vaccines. They're emergency use authorized. They're more impressive results. You know, there's nothing to suggest that the vaccines can have anywhere near the treatment effect because so many people who take the vaccines don't get COVID. So many people who take the vaccines don't get COVID. They never get COVID. Right. What does the VA data show you? 96% of people who take the vaccines never get COVID. So the vaccines are given to a large number of people who are never going to come in contact with the vaccine. Remember the registration of trials? Why would you say never? They just haven't. I mean, we're relatively new in this thing, right? Well, the CDC tells us 146 million people have already had it.

Right. Have already had it. Now, those data run in arrears. We could be closer to 200 million people have already had it. Do you think there's any reason for someone who's already had COVID to get vaccinated? No, there's three studies well-characterized and three more that have weighed in in preprint showing harm. So we've already covered the fact that recovered people don't get COVID a second time. And even if you argue that you think you can find a case here and there, boy, it's one in seven billion people

who can get COVID a second time. It's rare as hen's teeth if it even happens. So the point is, if you can't get it a second time, you can only be exposed to harms. So the vaccines, like any other medical treatment, are not free of adverse effects. Now, what if someone got a very mild case of COVID, an asymptomatic test that showed up, or asymptomatic case that showed up as a PCR test, especially when they were running, what was it, like 40 cycles at one point in time. If that person tested positive on multiple occasions but does not show antibodies in an antibody test, do you think for that person it would be a good idea to get vaccinated? You know, if one, there's three ways to prove your immunity. One is you have a concrete

case of COVID-19. So, you have the characteristics, signs, and symptoms. You were sick. Positive PCR test, preferably low cycle threshold. Antigen test. I got COVID-19. I did the right thing. I was in FDA-approved research. I took hydroxychloroquine in FDA-approved research. And I tested positive for the PCR, but also the antigen. So I had, you know, COVID-19 is such an important diagnosis. Why don't we confirm it? In HIV, we always use confirmatory testing. We don't ride on one test alone. But in the case where it's well-documented and you're sick, you're done. You basically have permanent immunity at that point. Over 35, 135 studies support that now.

Paul Alexander. Permanent immunity. Permanent. SARS-CoV-1, which is 90% similar to SARS-CoV-2, it's forever. It's forever. So if you have symptoms and you recover from those symptoms, likely you have lifetime immunity. Everything we can tell, it's just like SARS-CoV-1. SARS-CoV-1 is 17 years old.

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

So you think that recommendation is not based on science. It's based on the idea that they want to distribute as many vaccines as possible. Well, it was based originally out of a concern of caution. Don't forget the vaccine recommendations- Originally. Yeah, originally. So listen, we're not sure if you can get it again. Take the vaccine, right? Remember the vaccines originally were just offered as they should. They're research. The vaccines are research. They are all investigational research. And so, nobody can encourage somebody to take a vaccine, by the way. That violates the Nuremberg Code.

Can't do it. Research is neutral. As a doctor, I can never tell somebody they should take the COVID-19 vaccine. Why? Because same reason why I can't tell them, say, listen, you should be in my research study. You should take my research pill for diabetes. You know, if I told them that you should be in my research study, I'd be sanctioned by the IRB. I'd be called by the FDA. That's out of bounds.

We never give any pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal for participating in research. Violates the Nuremberg Code. And we certainly wouldn't do it with these vaccines because we don't have all the data yet. But yet so many people are doing that. Well, I tell you right now, they're walking a line on bioethics that they will be held accountable. You can't do that. You can't do that. No one can. No good doctor can. No good doctor. Now, getting back to vaccine safety. So the idea here is that we have to reconcile with vaccine safety. So the story is by January 22nd, we already had 182 deaths after the vaccine, January 22nd. For all the vaccines combined, 278 million shots given each year in

the United States, kids, adults, me and you, I took two last year, I took one this year, 270 million shots. The average number of deaths that would ever come into our central database, about 150. We've been keeping this database for 20 years. Suddenly, we were at 182. And then it was a very important recognition that many of us had say wait a minute the cdc and fda they didn't have any safety review they didn't have an external critical event committee they didn't have a data safety monitoring committee and they didn't have a human ethics board assigned to the program it turns out we had the wrong agencies leading the program the fda is supposed to be the drug watch uh government organization they don't lead clinical programs the c The FDA is supposed to be the drug watch government organization.

They don't lead clinical programs. The CDC is supposed to be the outbreak evaluation program. They don't lead clinical programs. So in fact, we actually had the wrong, we had the, in a sense, the fox guarding the chicken coop, in a sense, we had the wrong people leading the programs. And then we didn't have the independent safety committees. So there was nobody to stop the program in February. Normally what happens is you get five deaths after any product is unexplained. Black box warning, may cause death. You get to 50 deaths. I don't care if it's 50 million, 60 million people take their drug. You get to 50 deaths, it's off the market, and it gets reviewed for safety. I've been involved with these, Joe, at a national level. We never let a drug go on and be associated with 50 deaths afterwards.

We were at 182 and there was no safety review. Remember I told you in February, I demanded, as a citizen, I demanded a report from the federal government. We needed a report and a press briefing on vaccine safety and efficacy. We never got it. Can I pause you for a second there? But isn't it rare that a group of people as large as the number of people that are getting vaccinated participates in some, if you want to call it experiment or whatever it is, but this is essentially a mass inoculation. It's extremely large number of human beings. So if you're getting 182 people that are dying- Well, we had 182 at-

Shouldn't it be scalable? Well, hang on. Well, we had 182 at 27 million shots. 182, 27 million shots. Remember, the standard is 150 at 278 million shots. So 150 to 278, we had 182 to 27. So on normal conditions, but the idea was that people were dying from the pandemic and they were dying from COVID. So here's the idea. And this is the best example. There was somebody in my circles around March, came by my house, a guy like you, in shape, came by biking. And his wife said, we took the vaccines. We took the vaccines. We're safe. I said, listen, I'm kind of concerned. By March, we're at 1,200 deaths, Joe, 1,200 deaths. I said, we're at 1,200 deaths. He goes, what are you talking about? We vaccinated 60 million people,

1,200 deaths, small price to pay. I continue the thought in my mind, small price to pay for the Aryan race. That is the type of thinking that people comes into people's minds, driven out of fear, driven out of mass psychosis, that say, listen, I took the shot. I took a risk. If it kills somebody else, I don't care. Well, there is a thing that people that took the shot and took the risk want other people to do the same. That's exactly right. Now, fast forward where we are today. We're at 18,000 deaths. And this is just the VAERS, which is underreported. This is VAERS, Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System. And we know in that system, these are certified by the CDC. So the red box report comes up once a week. It's certified by the CDC. That means all these events really happened because

they come in as temporary VAERS numbers and then they vet them. So all of these really happened, 18,000 deaths. There are 30,000 individuals who are permanently disabled after the vaccine. 30,000. 250,000. Emergency room visits, office visits, other healthcare encounters related to the vaccine, we have two separate analyses showing, one from McLaughlin from Queen's University in London, one from Jessica Rose from Canada, showing that 50% of these deaths occur within 48 hours of the shot, that 80% of the deaths occur within a week. They're very tightly related. We now know that the spike protein after these vaccines is produced in the

body for an uncontrolled quantity and an uncontrolled duration of time. And because the antibodies to the spike protein after the vaccine are so high compared to the respiratory infection, we now infer that, in fact, one gets a much larger dose of the spike protein after vaccination than the respiratory illness. And in some people, they invariably can't handle the spike protein exposure to the human body. Who dies? McLachlan looked at this and found that the vast majority of deaths are in seniors, the very people we wanted to protect. So the deaths are occurring in nursing home residents, people in their 80s, high 70s, and on down. McLaughlin took, he had 1,200 deaths at the time of the publication, took them and coded the deaths rigorously through the vignettes, independent reviewers,

by causality. It was actually due to the vaccine. And they ascertained that 86% of the time, there was no other cause outside the vaccine. No other cause. 86%. 86%. Now, how do they do that when you're dealing with someone who's that old? Well, you have a vignette and you kind of read the vignette. There's been separately nursing home studies.

There's one by Kirkendall and colleagues that in nursing homes, they had 100 deaths after the vaccine in a nursing home in Scandinavia. So they reviewed the deaths. They came up with a number closer to 40% were directly due to the vaccine. But what I'm saying is just like the respiratory infection takes out people who are teetering on the brink of survival, right? The vaccine does the same thing because the vaccine and the respiratory illness are one in the same in terms of the spike protein. We're giving the body back the spike protein in relatively high quantities. And then a whole bunch of things would come out. So in VAERS, to make sure your audience has this down, 18,000 deaths. That's everything reported

in. We know from a paper by Meisner and colleagues before COVID that about 86%, 85% of these reports are done by doctors, nurses, or other healthcare professionals. I think the vaccine caused the problem. And also the pharmaceutical manufacturers, only about 14, 15% are done by the patient themselves. We know from the data presented in the whistleblower, there's an FDA whistleblower lawsuit for deaths after the vaccine that was filed by attorney Tom Rents using CMS data. So in CMS, we also know when they got the vaccine and who they died. And it doesn't depend on self-reporting, right?

Because CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, they know when people come off the rolls. And there, the underreporting number was established. So we know VAERS are underreported by about four to five. So of those 18,000 deaths, 9,000 are domestic, 9,000 are ex-US, but they report through our systems. So if we have 9,000 Americans truly have died after the vaccine and the underreporting number is about five, we're at 45,000 American lives lost.

And that's what's in the FDA. That's the lawsuit against the FDA. How did they arrive at that number of underreporting? There was a Harvard study that showed underreporting being as high as 1%. Meaning they only report 1% of the adverse effect. Right. So the Harvard study was with the HPV or human papillomavirus vaccine. That's all it was about? Yeah. And the idea is, well, parents and kids are getting it and what have you. So it's probably gross. There's probably gross underreporting

there. COVID people are on edge, right? And so what CMS, the CMS data, basically, you know when someone got the shot and you know when they died. And so we know what proportion of the U.S. population are CMS recipients. so by extrapolation can calculate what the real number is. So the real number at the time they filed, the number was around about 45,000 compared to what was in VAERS. That's how we can get to the underreporting relationship of four to five. And we think that's a fair number. Four to five is probably a fair number. Now, what is the difference between the way the spike protein interacts with the body via infection from respiratory illness versus an injection from the vaccine? Well, we learned July 29th, Bruce Patterson, who's a terrific molecular biologist, he's

between Northwestern and Stanford, showed for the first time with a respiratory infection, the S1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable in human monocytes for up to 15 months after infection. So you had the infection, Joe. You got 15 months to clear that stuff out. Now, maybe sooner and hopefully lower exposure, you got monoclonal antibodies, other drugs. I got drugs. Hopefully, we had less exposure to it. Our bodies can be free of the spike protein. The S1 segment's the outer segment. That's the one that actually docks with the ACE2 receptor. The S2 segment's the one closer to the ball of the virus. Now, I interviewed Bruce Patterson for the McCullough Report on America

Loud Talk Radio, the McCullough Report. And what Bruce told me, and he had the data, is that in the vaccinated individuals, as long as he can see after the vaccination, they have measurable spike protein, S1 and S2 segments, within the monocytes. We knew from a paper by Ogata and colleagues from Harvard showed that the free-floating spike protein was in the plasma for on average two weeks after the vaccines, messenger RNA vaccines, but one person in their study, it was measurable in plasma for 29 days. So that's spike proteinemia in the plasma. The spike protein damages cells. It goes, damages

cells in the heart, the brain, damages blood vessels, causes blood clotting. We know the spike protein is dangerous. A paper by Ovolio shows it damages heart muscle cells, pericytes. The FDA has warnings on the vaccines for myocarditis or heart damage. So this is biologically cohesive that the vaccines could damage the human body and cause death. So the biological plausibility is there. We know that it's a strong signal, so we have that. We know that it's internally consistent in the VAERS system, meaning there are other non-fatal events like heart attacks, blood clots, myocarditis. And now it's externally consistent. The same pattern is seen in the yellow card system in the UK through the MHRA,

and it's also seen in the UDRS system in Europe. So what I've laid out for you is we've fulfilled what's called the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. That means it's it. I'm an epidemiologist by training. This is my line of work. I'm telling you, for a large number of individuals, the vaccine has caused death and these vaccine-induced organ injury syndromes. Why is it that it doesn't affect most people this way? If you look at the vast majority of people that have been vaccinated, and that's one of the things that we have to go on in this country, is that literally, what is it? It's over 200 million people, I believe, have been vaccinated.

That's an enormous amount of human beings. Most of them are fine. Is that an accurate statement? It's just, again, just like the respiratory infection. We've had 146 million people who've had the respiratory infection. Less than 1% died. Right. But the ones that have gotten the injection and died or got myocarditis versus the ones

who got the injection and nothing happened at all. What's the difference? What happened? Again, just like the respiratory infection. Remember, you and I had the respiratory infection. We're perfectly fine. We're sitting here talking. 99% of people who got the respiratory infection are fine. 99% of people who got the vaccine are fine. So we're 200 million people who got the vaccines, and we have about 1 million people injured. So it's the same. They're identically

the same. It's the same concept. So what do you think is causing the damage in the 1%? Just like with the respiratory infection, it's all about susceptibility. Remember, in the respiratory infection, it's the elderly, those with medical problems, those with comorbidities. It's the same thing. So with the vaccine, it's the elderly. It's with comorbidities. For instance, blood clotting.

Those who have inherited proclivity to blood clotting are going to be the ones who are likely to going to form the fatal blood clots that happen with the vaccine. Invariably, there's going to be some determinants of who develops the myocarditis. We have a lead on this, by the way. The myocarditis is not equal in terms of gender. It's running about 80% boys and 20% girls. So it must be some relationship there. Well, I'm glad you said boys and not men because that's what I'm asking you about. These are not people that have a susceptibility to a disease. They don't have a pre-existing condition.

They're young people and they're getting myocarditis. So what is causing that? people and they're getting myocarditis. So what is causing that? In a paper from Finland, an important paper done before COVID-19, where they collected all the myocarditis cases in Finland before COVID-19, they established kind of who got it and what was the rate. And in that paper, I believe the first author is Tshope, what it showed was that there is an age gradient that occurs as one goes from age 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, very, very little. And then once it approaches puberty, it goes up. After age 12, it really goes up, 12 to 17 or 18. And it runs about 80% boys or 90% boys. And importantly, the number

per million, you could actually calculate the number per million per year, came out to four cases per million per year. So if you figure that we have, let's make it easy math. Let's say we have 70 million kids in the United States and we do, you know, so 70 times four, that would be 280 kids with myocarditis. Some people say, add on some teenagers or other people, we could get to 700, 800 cases of myocarditis per year. Do you know what we're in affairs right now, Joe? 13,000 certified cases of myocarditis, pericarditis. I know because I've reported some. So some kids have come to my clinic. They've had heart inflammation. We know in a paper by Tracy Hogue from UC Davis, thousands of cases of myocarditis from VAERS and V-safe, 86% of these kids have to be hospitalized. They're sick. They have chest pain. They have ST-segment elevation

on the EKG. Sky-high troponins. The blood test for heart injury is about 10 to 100-fold that of a man having a heart attack. These are kids having significant heart damage, about a quarter have incipient heart failure, as seen by echo. I've seen them in follow-up in my clinic. We have to use heart failure drugs. And very importantly, to treat myocarditis, no physical activity. Physical activity can trigger sudden cardiac death. So no physical activity for sure. I've done this in my practice. The point I'm making, Joe, is the CDC calls me and says, Dr. McCullough, we want to review

this case with you. And we go over it. And we agree after we go over the labs and what have you. 13,000 certified cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, that number should be no more than 600 on a background rate. So no physical activity. So when these people do have this heart inflammation and then they have physical activity, that's what's causing, like, do you believe, like, there's been a rash of cases of soccer players in particular. I'm sure you're probably aware of this, that have collapsed and or died. And it's much higher than normal. Do you think that that's probably what's,

that this is what's attributable to that? There is a montage of deaths on the soccer field, rugby field, particularly in Europe, overseas. It's interesting, not in the United States, but overseas, that's concerning. Now, of course, you know, each case is its own case. Did they take a vaccine? When did they take a vaccine? Right. Could they have subclinical?

Could they have taken a vaccine in the last six months? Could they have some subclinical symptoms? It's hard when you're a young athlete and you're sore all over. You know, the chest soreness may not be that demonstrable. Right. And vigorous physical activity, particularly that start, stop, especially know, the chest soreness may not be that demonstrable. And vigorous physical activity, particularly that start-stop, especially soccer, particularly, would make me think. But, you know, if that's the case, and it was myocarditis, which one would be seeing the NBA and NFL and elsewhere, it raises the suspicion that myocarditis, there's strict warnings against this. Remember, FDA,

suspicion. The myocarditis, there's strict warnings against this. Remember, FDA has on Moderna and Pfizer warnings on myocarditis. Jessica Rose and I published in Current Problems of Cardiology a paper from theirs. And the upper tail of the myocarditis for men goes all the way up to age 50. So I'm telling you, I have somebody in my practice who's well above the teenage years who has myocarditis. We're going to see more and more because it's now known, and the FDA agrees, that the vaccines, in fact, do go to the heart. They get distributed all in the body. And in fact, the Koreans, we had the first fatal case of myocarditis I'm aware of reported from Washington University in St. Louis, an American who took the vaccine. And now the Koreans have reported one patient of a young

lady got put on ECMO. She survived. She got 10 minutes of CPR and got put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. She survived. But sadly, another Korean man died and did an autopsy. His heart was loaded with inflammation. You know, the heart swells. It gets to be about double the size in a matter of just a few days after taking the vaccine with myocarditis. It's explosive after shot number two. So two questions in regards to what you just said. One, soccer, I think, is probably one of the most cardio-intensive sports because it's an enormous field and they're constantly running. They have these long sprints. I don't think it's comparable in the same sense as the NBA. I think the NBA is a much smaller playing field and I just don't think it's comparable in the same sense as the NBA. I think the NBA is a much smaller playing field.

And I just don't think it's – obviously, you have to be in great shape. But I don't think it's as cardio-intensive. The vaccine causing this, why would it be that – are they getting different vaccines in Europe where these soccer players are dropping? And if that's the case, are some vaccines more, do they lead people to be more susceptible to myocarditis? And then the other question is, does myocarditis reverse itself? Like, if you have myocarditis, is that automatically going to take years off your life, even if you recover from it? Because you refer to it as a non-fatal adverse event. If that's a non-fatal adverse event, does one eventually get back to normal

with myocarditis? Myocarditis, again, if we're at 400 to 800 cases in the United States per year, and over the course of my career, I've seen one or two cases, spontaneous myocarditis before COVID. One or two? One or two. That's it. That's it my whole career because it's rare, obviously. And what would that be from? What would be the cause of it? The most fatal type is called giant cell myocarditis. It literally is idiopathic, comes out of nowhere. We don't know what causes it. There's other forms, adenoviruses, parvoviruses that can cause myocarditis. And these are typically treated just supportively. There was a randomized trial, and actually Dallas, Texas played a big role in it called the Myocarditis Treatment Trial, MITT. And that

did biopsies and showed routine cardiac biopsies were not useful outside of trying to diagnose giant cell myocarditis. And then lastly, that routine corticosteroids weren't useful. Having said that, when we try to treat patients, we end up using colchicine, sometimes some other drugs. I want to get the right citations down. So the paper from Finland was by Arola and colleagues. They came with the estimate of four cases per million per year as a baseline. So that means in the United States, 400 to 800 cases a year. We've already gotten to over 13,000 cases in the United States. And we've seen cases of myocarditis, by the way, reported in the U.S. military, been reported from Israel, France, and elsewhere. The paper that showed it directly invades the heart, the spike protein, that was by Avoglio and colleagues in the PERI sites.

And very importantly, the prognosis is what you're asking about. The prognosis paper was published by Karsten Chopey, and that was in Circulation Research 2019. And what it showed is it showed that 13% of myocarditis, this is before COVID, ends up with progressive heart failure and worsening. My fear is some of these kids who develop myocarditis will be in a 13% category where they have progressive left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure. So the myocarditis they're experiencing right now is damaged heart tissue, and that damaged heart tissue is not going to heal, and that it, in fact, might get worse. The estimates are, and again, I'm applying data from other forms of myocarditis before COVID. And COVID looks like a pretty severe form of it, to be honest with you, because it's putting 86% of the kids in the hospital.

You know, there's myocarditis that we actually don't hospitalize. We can treat myocarditis and myopericarditis in the office. But these kids are sick enough to be hospitalized. I'm inferring that it's severe forms of it. have to be hospitalized. I'm inferring that it's severe forms of it. This estimate from this paper would be 13% risk in these kids of developing heart failure or needing things like ICDs, heart failure, oral drugs, later on cardiac transplant or cardiac death. When you say cardiac transplant, you're talking about a heart transplant. Yeah.

Yeah. I read, we reviewed a horrible case of a 19-year-old girl who was vaccinated and wound up having a heart attack, heart failure, heart transplant. And then because of the immunocompromising drugs that they put her on to accept the transplant, she got pneumonia and died, 19. I said on national TV in June, when the FDA just had 200 cases they reviewed, FDA and CDC, the FDA, CDC said two things I think that were irresponsible. I'll call them out on it because I can. And that is, they said it's rare and they said it's mild. And I was on national TV saying, listen, in safety research, we never say the word rare. We say tip of the

iceberg. This is probably just the beginning of what we're going to see. And it's not mild because even in June, 90% were hospitalized. And sure enough, now we have 13,000 cases, 86% hospitalized. And you know, the Hogan analysis shows that a young boy is more likely to be hospitalized with myocarditis than ever be hospitalized with COVID-19, the respiratory illness. Yeah. We showed that to Sanjay Gupta and he was incredulant. When you're looking at this chart in front of you, what percentage of the people recover fully from myocarditis pre-pandemic, pre-COVID-19? In this paper by Tshope, this is good. This is like a medical grand rounds on Joe Rogan. I love it, Joe. So in this figure one from the Tshope paper, 27% never deviated from normal

heart function. So they were good all the way through. They were clinically hit myocarditis. 26% were categorized as recovered. Fully. Fully. 34% improved but never got back up to completely normal. And then 13% were impaired. I mean, the heart took a hit and they never recovered. There's a gentleman who is, he holds, what is it, the world's longest static breath hold? Is that what he holds? He's done the 10-minute guy.

You know who I'm talking about? we talked about him on the podcast before he's he got myocarditis from the vaccine and it's severely limited his ability to do that he had extreme cardiovascular function right because this is a guy can hold his breath for 10 minutes. And he says that it's caused somewhere, I mean, it's been, I believe he said it's been eight months plus since having myocarditis and still he's somewhere around 30% reduction of his abilities. Well, getting back to your question of, listen, 200 million people took the vaccine. Why are so many people fine? I think my answer to that, honestly, listen, 200 million people took the vaccine. Why are so many people fine?

Right. I think my answer to that, honestly, Joe, is that the body is a miraculous creation. And the body can fight off all kinds of things. You put some foreign messenger RNA in there with synthetic analog caps. Tony Karagopoulos and I have published on this. By the way, the messenger RNA probably stays in the body for a few months. The spike protein, Patterson, is showing, lasts in the body at least 15 months. There's a paper by Banzel and colleagues showing in the vaccinated that you have not only the S1 segment, but you have the S2

segments. You actually get both segments in the vaccinated persisting in the body for a long time, almost certainly beyond six months. That if someone took a shot one and shot two in January and February and nothing has happened, I'm following my patients carefully. 70% of people in my practice took the vaccine. Again, good doctors don't encourage, don't discourage. It was purely elective because they're in vaccine research. Fine. No harm, no foul. But if we start vaccinating every six months, I think the spike protein never gets out of the body. It accumulates. Progressive accumulation of the spike protein is very worrisome for these progressive organ injury syndromes.

So if we're doing it every six months, the spike protein will never really truly have a chance to get out of the body in these cases that you're talking about where it's still in the body for 15 months. 15 months is on the long side. Let's be charitable and say it lasts in the body a year. That's what the Banzel paper and Bruce Patterson in his paper and in his interview on my podcast, America Out Loud Talk Radio McCullough Report. Based on this leading work, I'm telling you as a doctor, I think the spike protein is in the human body after vaccination at least a year. And so if you have a year to clear it out, and you clear it out, and nothing's happened, no harm, no foul. The vast majority of people

in my practice did fine with the vaccines. Now, I don't know if they ever came in contact with COVID or not. They did fine. It is my practice experience that when they do get COVID, that it's a milder form. It's easier to treat. Do I still give monoclonal antibodies? Sure. Do they get ivermectin? Yes. And prednisone and all the other drugs, anticoagulant? Sure. Sadly, can vaccinated patients die of COVID-19? Sure. The CDC has told us the CDC in mid-October had 41,000 full vaccine failure cases recorded by departments of public health. This is just spontaneous reporting. It's not the universe of cases. And about a quarter of those were deaths. So the CDC has large numbers of people who have been fully vaccinated who died. It can happen. But it's our experience, and I

shared with you the data, the vaccines do do something. They provide a modest protection against hospitalization and death. What we're getting to, Joe, is based on the safety profile we've described and based on the efficacy, is it compelling enough to actually mandate it in people? Or is it something that ought to be a free choice? And if it is a free choice and you do develop myocarditis, so let's say you have an adverse event when you take the vaccine, what can be done to treat these people? Treatment of myocarditis would be three to six months of no physical activity. Six months, no physical activity at all? Right. No rigorous walks, nothing? I mean, outside of daily activities, going to class, going home, this and that,

but we don't want any running, weightlifting, soccer. Nothing like that. Because the worry, we trigger cardiac death. And then for when the heart pumping function is reduced, and we see this by echocardiography, MRI, we use what's called evidence-based beta blockers, Carvetalo, Busopralol, Long-Acting Metoprolol. And then we use what's called RAS inhibitors. That's ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or a new drug called Entrusto. And that's what I use in myocarditis patients who have impaired pumping function because we're trying to prevent slippage and even worsened

heart failure. And then for the pleural pericardial symptoms, we use a drug called colchicine. And colchicine is a drug we actually use in the treatment of COVID-19 acute illness. Remember, the acute illness is similar to the vaccine illnesses. They have so many similar because it's the same spike protein. We use colchicine in order to try to relieve some of the pericardial symptoms in our randomized trials, suggesting that would help try to extinguish the inflammation in the heart. Is there anything that someone can take? Let's say if your job mandates that you get vaccinated. Is there anything that someone can take that could potentially mitigate the negative effects of the spike protein? Boy, that's kind of getting into this idea of

moral hazard and social contract. So people ask me all the time, Doc, I'm going to lose my job. My job. I'm losing my job if I don't take the vaccine. And I usually ask them, you know what I ask them? What's a social contract? What do you get? If you take the vaccine? And I usually ask them, you know what I ask them? What's the social contract? What do you get? If you take the vaccine, what do you get? Are you getting 20 years of employment, 10, 5 a year? Are you even getting a guaranteed employment? I mean, they can fire you next week. Are you getting six months? Are you getting three months? They say, I don't know. Nobody told me the social contract. I say, why don't you figure out the social contract before you take a spin with this vaccine? And people are trying to say, listen, can I have my cake and eat it too? Can I

take the vaccine and keep my job for some undeclared social contract and take some antidote? Well, there are things that have been suggested on the website. Dr. Tess Lowry from the United Kingdom, who's one of the leaders in early treatment of COVID-19, she's one of the ones who did the great analyses on ivermectin, has started a program. And I think it's called World for Health, something along these lines. You'll find it on the internet. It's got a yellow and pink kind of montage color. And in there, there are some published approaches on web, not peer-reviewed. Of course, there's no randomized trials of things one could do to reduce the inflammation,

the thrombogenicity, and some of the organ injury syndromes. I'm leery of that approach because that's basically creating this moral hazard, meaning that it's okay to take the vaccine, and you can just take this antidote to prevent complications. And so this moral hazard, by the way, came up in a radio interview I had with Hugh Hewitt. And I have to tell you, I think it's one of the few difficult interviews I had. And Hugh Hewitt came on, and when he invited me on, Joe, he said, you know, I'm bringing on Dr. McCullough. And I want to say before he gets on, he let us know, he let me know he's an attorney.

And he said, I'm pro-vaccine. I think everybody should take the vaccine. And I think this is how we end the pandemic. But let me bring on this doctor. And then he asked me a question. He said, Dr. McCullough, he said, if somebody listens to you and they don't get COVID-19 and they don't take the vaccine and they get COVID-19 and they die, that's on you because they listened to you and they didn't take the vaccine. I said, Hugh, I said, if they listen to you and they take the vaccine, they've been pressured into vaccine research. and they take the vaccine, they've been pressured into vaccine research. And if they take the vaccine and they're one of the thousands of people who drop dead within a couple of days of the

vaccine, I said, that's on you. I said, who's got the bigger moral hazard here? The bottom line is you can dodge COVID forever. There's people who have never gotten COVID. They're dodging COVID fine. In fact, you cannot take the vaccine and get treatment for COVID and survive it. I did. I got COVID before the vaccines. For me, it's over with. You got COVID after the vaccines. You got treatment. You got through it. So did Aaron Rodgers. So did so many of us. The bottom line is there's no moral hazard for deferring on the vaccines because the vaccines are research and they're elective. And the vaccines are only to protect the individual. There's no data suggesting the vaccines protect others. This is very, very important. There are

now studies. There is a recent study in the journal Lancet that has actually asked the question, do the vaccines actually protect others from getting COVID-19? Because that is really what's going on. There's people in my circles that have said, listen, take the vaccine, protect other people. You don't do it for yourself. You do it for somebody else. That was a later narrative though, right? I know, but so we need later research to apply to the later narrative. Yeah. Haven't you heard follow the science? Yeah.

Haven't you even heard that someone claims that they are science? Yes, I have. Now, science is a process, and you're laughing. You and I are pretty humble here, but let me tell you, let's follow the science. So this paper is from Anika Singayagamam, and this is published from the ATACCC Study Investigator Group in The Lancet. And this paper just landed in The Lancet. Oh, I can't believe you got it. That's terrific. And you know what the storyline here is?

39% of this very careful case contact studies, and it's up on, Joe, it's on my call here on my slides. studies, and it's up on, Joe, it's on my call, here on my slides, 39% of transmission occurred from fully vaccinated to fully vaccinated individuals. I mean, it's a pretty large number. Yeah. So the point is, we now have abundant evidence. We had the Barnstable County outbreak in Massachusetts that clearly showed, and the CDC told us, Barnstable County, they told us, congregate settings, people got COVID-19. It was Delta. Look at two-thirds are fully vaccinated. We had the naval cruise ship, 3,700 individuals fully vaccinated. They passed Delta to each other. Then we had these papers here. We have one from Haver, CDC COVID network. We have Fillmore from the VA. This is data shading into June. This is before Delta really kicked up.

We had 23% of Americans in the hospital who were vaccinated, but they had COVID-19. Remember in June, remember that talking point that was issued? 99% of people in the hospital were unvaccinated. Yeah. That's propaganda. That's false information put out by those in position of authority. There was one time, and I was on Laura Ingraham, and they had a montage of everybody saying 99% unvaccinated. Even the governor of Florida said that. President of the United States said that. That was a false talking point that was issued, a false talking point that was issued, and everybody said it. I think designed to encourage people to get vaccinated. Well, there's certainly been a lot of encouragement to get vaccinated. Something someone told me I want to verify with you, if you were a healthy person and you took

monoclonal antibodies, would that offer you protection for a period of time from COVID? Well, there's been a randomized trial of case contacts. This is important. So a randomized trial, I believe using the Regeneron product. And so what they did is they took seniors, like say several seniors living together, one of them gets COVID-19 and the others are exposed and they're high risk. They took the exposed ones and they randomized them to getting subcutaneous injections of the monoclonal antibody versus placebo. And those who got the monoclonal antibodies in the setting of seniors close contact prevented the development of COVID-19. Now, when you got yours, did you get it IV or did you get- IV. Yeah. Yeah.

But so what happens is doctors have taken those findings and said, listen, it's parenteral administration. We're going to give a sub-Q injection. It's actually four injections that is needed to give it. But I want the listeners to understand the monoclonal antibodies are safe, effective, proven. They clearly reduce symptoms. They reduce hospitalization death, and they are a product of operation warp speed. So not everything that happened with pandemic response was bad. This was a great development. Think about an antiviral monoclonal antibody. What a wonderful advance. We've never had it before. So there's an unlimited supply or a very large supply, more than adequate for the entire population for monoclonal antibodies. So what is stopping the distribution of them?

Because not only have they made it difficult to get, in Texas, they actually put these parameters on who gets it and who doesn't. And you have to be in a high-risk ethnicity to get it. A friend of mine went, he had COVID, and he is a healthy Caucasian male in his 30s. And they told him, you are not qualified to receive the monoclonal antibodies. And the lady who was working there said, if you were another ethnicity, like if you were Hispanic or black, then we would qualify you.

And she was like, look, this is not my idea. I just have to follow the rules. Why would anybody establish rules like that? Like what is that? And they're so arbitrary. From center to center, the arbitrariness of the rules. I've sent younger patients who have severe symptoms and in trouble for monoclonal antibodies, they've been turned down. I've had other people go for monoclonal antibodies themselves and get them, find no difficulty. Most

of the time, I have to say, I've had a great experience. People got the monoclonal antibodies, but I have to tell you an anecdote. Somebody close in my religious circles developed COVID-19, and he developed some severe respiratory symptoms. And I had gotten wind of vaccine discrimination, Joe. I had gotten wind of this. And this person was not vaccinated. I said, we're going to go for monoclonal antibody infusion. It's late on a Saturday night. He goes for the monoclonal antibody infusion. And the doctor at the center in Dallas lords over him, arms folded, and says, have you been vaccinated? And this person looks up at him. He says, I refuse to answer that question. And the doctor looked at him. He said, okay. He goes,

and the person who came and said, listen, I just want a monoclonal antibody infusion. Go home. He gets the monoclonal antibody infusion. And on the way out the door, he goes, hey, doc. He goes, what if I would have answered that question if I told you I was vaccinated? He goes, oh, I would have given you remdesivir. If he was vaccinated. Right. So the example is that's an example of perverse vaccine discrimination. So he would have been discriminated against getting a high quality therapy and getting a lower quality therapy. It doesn't make any sense.

So is that just a poor doctor or just a bad doctor? No, it goes to show you the arbitrariness and the confusion that exists out there, that monoclonal antibodies are safe and effective. They work in vaccinated or unvaccinated. There was a previous thinking that if you are vaccinated, you should already have antibodies to the virus, so therefore we're going to use remdesivir against the polymerase inhibitor. But it's just faulty thinking because vaccine breakthrough cases, the virus is basically blown past the vaccine antibodies.

And why not give it a shot? Regeneron's two different antibodies. GSK's an antibody against the glycoprotein. Why not use a more intelligent therapy? I can tell you, I've looked at all the data carefully. Hands down, the monoclonal antibodies blow away remdesivir. Another thing that bothers me is do you know that when patients get admitted to the hospital, no monoclonal antibodies. Once

they cross that line, and I had a sad case in Fort Worth that broke my heart, 38-year-old man. He was really sick. His wife is really sick. We scramble. We get medications. His wife gets the monoclonal antibodies and goes home, Joe, with other drugs, okay, and she survives. They got five kids. He's 38 years old. He's obese. He doesn't get the monoclonal antibodies. They say, you know what? You're too sick. We're going to admit you. He never gets the monoclonal antibodies, Joe, and he dies in the hospital. And if they just gave him the monoclonal antibodies in the hospital, he likely would have survived. Yes, or give him in the ER. This was a matter of clicking. Why is it so arbitrary that once you go into the hospital, they won't give you the monoclonal antibodies in the hospital, you likely would have survived. Yes, or give them in the ER. This was a matter of clicking. Why is it so arbitrary that once you go into the hospital, they won't give you the monoclonal

antibodies? It doesn't make any sense. The emergency use authorization gives some general guidelines in an FAQ. The FAQ gives information like says, you know, use as an inpatient and outpatient, but it's not a law. I mean, if I can use Bactrim as an outpatient, I can use Bactrim as an inpatient. If I want to use Regeneron as an outpatient, I can use it. Doctors have authority over the FAQ. People are reading this FAQ like it's some type of law, and as soon as they cross the line in the hospital, they can't get this life-saving therapy.

So the doctor has the ability, once a person is hospitalized, to still administer monoclonal antibodies, and they choose not to because of this bizarre, the way this is written. And the same reason why they choose not to use ivermectin in the hospital. The same reason why they choose not to use- But at least ivermectin is controversial. And I'm not letting anybody off the hook, but at least it's controversial. There's a lot of people that don't think it's actually effective. No one thinks that monoclonal antibodies are not effective. No one that I've heard of. I'd agree with that.'t think it's actually effective. No one thinks that monoclonal antibodies are not

effective. No one that I've heard of. I'd agree with that. I think there are just some unproven concerns. One concern is when the oxygen saturation is lower, if we give a monoclonal antibody, we could create some perfusion changes in the lungs and further worsen hypoxemia. That's never been shown. There have been other thoughts that if someone gets admitted to the hospital, they're too late for monoclonal antibodies. So remember, the principle with therapy is, Joe, the later we start something, the less efficacy it is. So if you want to show failure of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and monoclonal antibodies, apply it very late. So this idea that, well, they're outpatients, now I'm within the FAQ, and they're likely to benefit, fine. My point is, come on, this is a fatal condition. You know, just because we're on the edge of weeks earlier, had rib fractures, impaired pulmonary

function, gets serious COVID. We do everything we can as an outpatient, Joe. All the drugs, ivermectin, we were using every vitamin, you name it. What you call the kitchen sink, that's what we were doing, trying to save her life, woman in her 50s. Gets so hypoxemic and sick, her husband's sick, we toss in the towel, call 911. She goes to the hospital. I said, get monoclonal antibodies in the ER. Oh, they're going to admit her. They're not going to do it. Fortunately, we got, this is Tampa General Hospital. The person listening to this will know who they are. And they got to the other side of the admission and I was relentless. And I said, get in a monoclonal antibody trial. Thank the Lord they got into the AstraZeneca monoclonal antibody trial. We don't know if they got placebo or monoclonals, but she survived. No intubation. And it was like,

wow, it was that close. This is a little window of my life for the last two years. Do you know there's 500 doctors trying to treat the entire country like this? My phone, once I turn my phone on from this interview, Joe, I am going to be loaded with cases that I'll earvise on or try to help on all the way home. Why is it so few doctors? There is a grip of fear over the doctors originally. I think they were personally fearful of taking care of patients and they wanted someone to tell them what to do. Remember, doctors are not like Navy SEALs. Doctors are not like police officers or firemen or world wrestling champions. Doctors are kind of nerds. There's no checkbox that says, I'm courageous. I'm willing to take some risks. They don't check those boxes. And I think there was a small number of doctors,

I guess I'm one of them, that I said, you know what? I'm going to take some risks. I can do this. You know, I can put drugs. Pierre Corey, you talk to him. Pierre Corey's another guy. He didn't hesitate. I didn't hesitate. Jose Verone down in Houston, he runs a whole hospital. He doesn't hesitate. There's 500 of doctors out there that now are basically held out as heroes. You read Bobby Kennedy's book. We look like we're American heroes. It's only because we're treating patients as we should. It's just hard to imagine being a person denying treatment to someone that you know would be effective because you're looking at some arbitrary rules that are written down that once they're admitted to the hospital, you can't give monoclonal antibodies.

And then to cast this judgment on them, why weren't you vaccinated? We're not going to treat you. I mean, but this is what's happening to a lot of patients. I had a conversation one time with a doctor and he goes, it was some conversation about treating patients early. He goes, well, you know, there's not enough evidence. There's not enough evidence. I need to wait. We need to wait for large randomized trials. Do you know in the U.S. Senate testimony, the minority witness multiple times told us, he goes, nope, these doctors are treating with these drugs. There's not enough evidence. There's not enough evidence. And then I think Ron John asked him, he goes, well, what do you think the best treatment is? Well, they should follow the

guidelines. And the guidelines say, stay at home and wait until you really can't breathe anymore. And then you come to the hospital, then you start treatment. And then I made a comment. I said, I want that to be written into the records of Senate testimony that that is a reckless recommendation for America, that it is reckless to recommend nothing in the setting of a fatal illness. Every serious fatal infection must be treated early. It's only going to get worse. We actually have, for other infections, we have time to the initial therapy as a benchmark of quality of care. Why would we let this virus rip the body for 14 days or longer? Can you imagine? You had it. Can you imagine if you were 75 years old, you had heart and lung disease, and you were sitting in your apartment, your parents, your kids couldn't come over and look after you, nobody could look after you, and every day you're stewing getting worse and worse and worse and worse until finally, and you're in isolation, finally at two weeks, you can't breathe anymore.

And you toss in the towel, you call 911, you call your daughter, you call your son, you contaminate the virus everywhere. And then you get put in the hospital, you get slammed into isolation, you get put on remdesivir, you get six milligrams of decadron. And then to make things absolutely the worst, you never see your loved ones again and you die. That's what's happened to 800,000 Americans. And so this is why you believe that at least 50% of those people, those deaths could have been prevented. That was in November of 2020 under sworn testimony. That number is easily 85% now.

Maybe it's 90% now if we got what you got. If you got the sequence multidrug treatment monoclonal antibodies, you called it the kitchen sink, so do I. Bottom line is it may be refined over time. The Merck and Pfizer drug, we'll bring them in. If other drugs come along, we'll refine it. Listen, it's a process. I'm not saying any one of these drugs is a miracle drug. None of them are necessary nor sufficient to save a life. But the point is what drives hospitalization is uncontrollable symptoms. It's uncontrollable anxiety. Do you know an anxiety drug itself actually cuts off the risk of hospitalization?

And that drug is fluvoxamine. I was going to ask you about that. Yeah, fluvoxamine takes an edge off the dyspnea. It may have some— Is that an SSRI? It's an SNRI, and it's an older one, but it takes an edge off. It may have some other unique effects. I mean, I give credit to those who have advanced it. Credit to Steve Kirsch, who's funded the COVID-19 early treatment program, and he's now funding the vaccine injury

program. Steve Kirsch, by the way, has a great offer out there for your listeners. I don't know if you know about this. His offer is anybody from any major academic medical center or any government agency who will come to the table and have a fair discussion on vaccine safety and efficacy, he'll pay them $2 million. Anybody? Anybody. You mean anybody who's like a high-level medical researcher or- Anybody who can make the case, even try to make the case that the vaccines are safe and effective. And if they don't make the case, they still get the money? Yeah. Really?

That seems like an easy $2 million. No one's come forward. Just go there and get your ass kicked for $2 million. Joe, no one's come forward. Really? No one's come forward. Just go there and get your ass kicked for $2 million. Joe, no one's come forward. Really? No one's come forward. Do they know about it? I just found out about it a few seconds ago.

People know about it. He's made a lot of calls and emails. And the point is people are under a trance with these vaccines. They actually know they're not safe and effective. They know it. They know when they took not safe and effective. They know it. They know when they took the vaccines, they took a risk. Now that's a safety day. You know the vaccine centers cleared out in mid-April?

I drive past one every day to work. And there used to be police officers. They were waving people in. There was cones. I was slowed down to try to get to the hospital because of vaccine traffic. And then it started to thin out and thin out and thin out. We got to mid-April, there was nobody there. You got to May and June, there's mothballs, the dust on the cones,

they put barriers up. The vaccine centers have been closed for months. When the word got out that people were dying after the vaccine, people stopped taking it. And there was an internet survey, unofficial on Twitter, I think, but it asked the question, do you know somebody who's died after the vaccine or somebody in your circles? Answer, 12%. And I'm telling you, 12% and people talk. You can suppress it all you want to. You know, there's the Trusted News Initiative. You can bring that up. Why don't you bring the Trusted News Initiative? The Trusted News Initiative was rolled out with the vaccines. On December 10th, it was rolled out. The Trusted News Initiative was rolled out with the vaccines. On December 10th, it was rolled out. The Trusted News Initiative, announced by the British Broadcasting Company, with all the other media, here it is. All the partners, that was all the major media and social media, Joe, will work together to ensure legitimate concerns about vaccinations are heard whilst harmful disinformation myths are stopped in their tracks. Translation, suppression on anything that would promote vaccine hesitancy.

And what would promote vaccine hesitancy? Early treatment, the hope of early treatment, staying out of the hospital. You know, if people knew they had an option, they could defer on the vaccine. And if they got COVID, get treatment. That would lead to vaccine hesitancy. How about vaccine safety? How about giving a press briefing on deaths after the vaccine? Are they happening with Moderna, Pfizer, J&J? Do we know? What's the profile of someone who dies after the vaccine? We have 19,000 cases. They could tell us, Joe, the point I'm making is if they won't be clean on vaccine

safety data, we can never get to risk mitigation. We can't get a safer program unless they are transparent on vaccine safety. Well, this is where the authoritarian aspect of this gets very complicated, right? Because they've assumed, the government has assumed the role of the parent. Just listen to us we're gonna tell you what to do and you and some much worse than others the woman in New Zealand's horrific there's been a bunch of them that are horrific where you hear them talk and they're so incredibly condescending and they feel like they have this ultimate power to just force people into this binary

solution and the ability also to suppress information, which may in fact be accurate, that the vaccines do carry a risk. What you said today, none of this is wild conspiracy theory. You're obviously incredibly well-educated and you're more than qualified to distribute this information. but if this was on YouTube this would get taken down We're very fortunate that Spotify doesn't operate like that and that this can Be received by millions of people all over the world, but there's not a lot of avenues for this now

There's very few in fact. They're randomly, I mean, not randomly, just they're purposely targeting experts and doctors that have opinions that differ from the approved narrative. You are one of those experts. Well, maybe because I looked in the camera and gave a wink in one of the interviews. I think it was Tucker Carlson where I said, bring it on. And this is what I mean about this. This is a giant game of chicken. And the bottom line is the people who win are the people with the truth. The truth in the end is kryptonite to everything out there. But it's taking tolls on a lot of doctors. The truth is powerful.

Can you bring up the graphic of a big public program? It's a picture of a crowd and I'm up in front. There's 500 doctors in my circles. Many of us are members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons or the Frontline Critical Care Consortium or American Frontline Doctors or the Truth for Health Foundation. Look at this. This is an American reawakening. We are now going into cities and we'll have meetings typically with lawmakers, several dozen lawmakers, and we'll go over the

issues we've covered today, Joe. We go into doctors programs. We'll have a smaller program for doctors. And then we go into big public programs. We are getting 500 to 5,000 people coming into venues and basically going over the slides like I went today. This is like a medical grand rounds for the public. And when I tell people, I said, where are the medical schools doing this? How come the medical schools aren't having public symposiums? We've had two years of COVID-19. Why is there no review of the data? Why are we not understanding vaccine safety and efficacy? And I say, listen, this is all about just understanding it. With the vaccines, for instance, about 70, 80% of Americans took the vaccine. I give the data. Do you know the most effective vaccine in terms of vaccine efficacy?

You probably have concluded already. It's Moderna. Moderna, because it's 100 micrograms of messenger RNA, Pfizer's only 30 micrograms of messenger RNA. It's more than three times a dose. Of course, it's a stronger vaccine. It's going to have more protection. The point is the public, in the end, it's the court of public opinion. And the public wants to know. And you know, on January 23rd in Washington, there is actually a march to defeat the mandates. There is a march out there, an American homecoming. Do you know it's my testimony and the testimony given by Jay Bhattacharya that Judge Dowdy in the sixth federal court in Louisiana used to overturn the rest of the Biden CMS mandates? And then within a few days, a whole

wave of states triggered against the mandates. Why? Because we have the truth. And you're talking to one of the two doctors who made it happen for the country. Have you personally experienced any repercussions? It's the most interesting thing. I've experienced sniping. When I mean sniping, that means someone shooting at you, but you can't see who they are. I've never had anybody have the guts to sit across the table from me and have a conversation. If I could bring someone who is a proponent of the vaccines, would you be willing to have a conversation with them? Bring them on and we'll have Steve Kirsch. we'll split the $2 million because I could use it for my legal fees. I can tell you right now, Steve Kirsch has been begging somebody to come

and just have a discussion on vaccine efficacy. Let's go over VAERS. Let's go over the efficacy data. Is this enough of a hospitalization and death benefit to consider taking it? So there's been some false narratives that have gone on that, in a sense, are working to make this forever. Joe, if you and I want to have COVID the rest of our lives, we would maintain these false narratives. And this is what they are, the asymptomatic spread. You and I could give it to each other. Another false narrative, we can get it over and over again. That means you and I sitting here with no masks, we have no symptoms,

we can give it to each other over and over again. Can you imagine these false narratives? And how about this? Take a vaccine and then take another vaccine every six months. But I got COVID. Well, you can get it again. Take another vaccine. Well, it doesn't stop COVID. We'll take another vaccine. This is forever. So the false narratives that we have to absolutely, if we want to get past the pandemic that have to go is asymptomatic spread and asymptomatic testing. Get it out of here. The other one is natural immunity, robust, complete, and durable. Never wear a mask. Never take a vaccine. Never take another test. You're done. It's one and done. I advise the Sri Lankan government. They reached out to me and said, listen, we're in trouble. We're getting buried with COVID.

This was several months ago. They said, we're running out of masks. What do we do? I said, get your COVID-recovered people out there and man the tents and start handing out the ivermectin hydroxychloroquine-based protocols. And that's what they did. And they handled the pandemic. I've personally had the alpha variant.

I was in research. I was tested. I've come face-to-face with Delta. Somebody red-hot at my face. There are kids all over me. We actually made videos of it. They're going to be in two different... I came back eight days later. You can't get it. You cannot get it. Do you know today that if someone's in a nursing home, there's somebody in my family in a nursing home, they've had COVID-19. Do you know every time somebody in the nursing home gets COVID-19, everybody gets put in a lockdown? That poor guy has been in solitary confinement six months out of the last year.

He's already had COVID-19. He's already paid the price. He should have free reign of the nursing home. He should never have to wear a mask. Do you know when someone's COVID recovered and they can't go into the hospital and see their loved one dying of COVID in the ICU? They can't get COVID a second time. See, if we don't recognize natural immunity, this is really important. Do you know that Diana Harshberger from a Republican House of Representatives, a congresswoman, is basically proposing national legislation for recognizing natural immunity? It's very important. Natural immunity is far and away the most important thing we can recognize. How do we establish it, though? How do you

establish that someone recovered from COVID and has natural immunity? Pick the definitions. Listen, what the FDA used for the registrational trials was fine. If someone said they had COVID and they had supportive testing, that counts. That would be you. If someone never got the supportive test but they thought they had it and they hit an antibody, if you hit Roche, LabCorp, Quest, Abbott, orthoclinical diagnostics, you hit one of those, you're immune. Because those positive controls, Joe, are set people sick enough in the ICU. What about, I have a friend, she tested positive. I was telling you about her on the PCR three times, but she was completely asymptomatic. But then when she was tested for antibodies, no antibodies. She ran through three different PCR

tests just to make sure, asymptomatic, tested positive. And then now when we test her for antibodies, we've tested her here. She does not show antibodies. Yeah. 15% of people who have symptomatic COVID, she didn't have that, but 15% of symptomatic COVID, they don't hit the antibodies because the positive controls are set on sick inpatients. Most people at home are not that sick. So a lot of people don't hit antibodies on the commercial tests. 15% don't. And if you don't, get the T-Detect test.

So the T-Detect test, go to t-detect.com, sign up, put all your information in. Once the lab director approves it, you go to LabCorp, get your blood drawn, and that looks for next-generation sequencing in the chromosomes of T cells to see if you've actually had COVID-19. And so that would be T cell and B cell immunity that you would maintain even though you don't show the antibodies? Yeah. Well, listen, the antibodies drop off in everybody. You know, there's a paper by Israel.

Not in Jamie. That dude is rock solid. I'm telling you, you should see his antibodies. Well, I'll tell you. He got COVID in October of last year and he still got, well, we're pretty sure he encountered it fairly recently and his body fought it off because his antibodies went way up. But superhuman over there. The papers in general suggest 15% of people don't hit the antibodies. I had COVID in October of 2020. It was by PCR and antigen.

I was in research. It was rock stable. I had COVID. I had all the characteristics, signs, and symptoms. My wife had it. In the research protocol, we had to follow up with Quest and get our antibodies done. My wife hits the antibodies fine. I can't hit the antibodies. I go two more times, I can't hit the antibodies. I go, what the heck? And I looked into it. 15% of people just literally, if your treatment is so intensive at first, you actually don't get enough spike protein exposure to get such a high antibody titer.

And in fact, the natural infection, the antibody titer is much softer than with the vaccines because with the vaccines, you get antibodies against one protein, the spike protein. With the natural infection, you get antibodies against 27 different proteins. Sorry, do you think that there can be an argument made that this milder form of the virus, this Omicron, which is apparently much milder, there's, as of today, we're with December 8th, is that today? There is, as far as what I read yesterday, I should say, December 7th, there was zero deaths attributed to this. So this is a milder form, and it seems to just give headaches and body aches. Would there be an argument that one should actually catch that, and that would be safer than even getting vaccinated?

It's a little early to say that, but I wanted to give you an update. I don't want to recommend that to people. I'm just saying, is that a possibility? But there's a group in Boston that is absolutely knocking it out of the park. It's a company called Inference. And the lead author is Venkata Krishnan. And a paper just came out in preprint. Oh, by the way, people need to know who's listening. Our peer-reviewed literature runs anywhere from six months to four years behind reality. So we actually publish something in New England Journal of Medicine, or we publish something in these journals, in my journal. I told you, I submitted something in June, the treatment paper, which is so important. It was printed online in August. It didn't appear in print until January. That's a typical publication cycle. In COVID-19,

we all agree that's too slow. So, COVID-19, what's fair game is called preprint, meaning that we get our data out early before it's gone through peer review, just so people can make decisions. And so if I'm kind of Christian, two days ago, just put this out on Omicron. Omicron is not a transformer. It's very important. Your kids think it's a transformer. You thought it was a transformer? Paul Alexander on his post in Brownstone, actually on the McCullough report, that's what I did. I had to put Optimus Prime on there. It's not a transformer, Joe. It's actually the name.

It's the name in the Greek alphabet. But it's interesting. Venkata Krishnan tells us there are 37 mutations in the spike protein. This blows off the socks off anything else. There are six deletions, one insertion, and the insertion, by the way, has some code that is almost for an epitope of another virus. There are 30 substitutions that are non-unique. You can find them in alpha, beta, gamma, and the other ones. And 16 of the 37 are called surge mutations.

37 are called surge mutations. So something happened in the surges when there was a lot of prevalence of disease and the virus was replicating being passed to people in these surge times where the virus made a lot of mistakes. So I was called on TV last week for Fox News, Laura Ingram said, Dr. McCullough, what's the update on Omicron? I said, I think it looks like an evolutionary mistake. The initial, you can actually do modeling studies based on once we know the code, and the code is known really quickly. Dr. Fantini out of France did modeling studies, let it on our networks, we found out quickly. The transmissibility, to give you a perspective, for the Wuhan wild type, the original virus, the transmissibility number, transmissibility index, was about two. The transmissibility of Delta, which has really been hard to treat. I think Delta has been way harder.

You may have had Delta. I had Alpha. You may have had Delta. You could have still had Alpha. But transmissibility of Delta, 10. You know what the transmissibility of Omicron is? Four. So for the first time, we've actually gone down in transmissibility.

And probably because the spike protein and the receptor binding domain where it binds to the ACE2 receptor is so dysmorphic that it actually can't invade the body as much. So that explains, you know, we haven't heard about these pulmonary syndromes. We haven't heard about these thrombomboic. It's mild so far. Now, cross our fingers. People always ask me, is this a milder variant? I remember with Delta, oh, is it milder? I said, wait a minute. What determines mild versus severe? Who gets early treatment? Mild or severe is not a natural history variable. What early treatment is so transformational, that's what determines death or hospitalization. But what if Omicron chose to be mild across the board, even without early treatment? Right. That's the key. So far, we can just assume no early

treatment. And so far, we're watching the reports carefully, but you're right. It looks like it's milder. And, you know, this could be, I don't think it's going to supplant Delta because Delta is more transmissible and is very successful in the vaccinated. Now, Omicron has actually arisen from the vaccinated. You know, the kids that were passing the Botswana border, they were fully vaccinated. They were asymptomatic. But when you do, Omicron's interesting. When you run a PCR test, there's four primers. There's an S protein, there's the nucleocapsid protein, the envelope protein, and the polymerase. There's four. The spike protein is so mutated with

Omicron that that actually primer drops out of the PCR pattern. It's called S gene dropout. So this is the first time based on, you know, it depends on what PCR has done, that actually the PCR itself could give a hint that it's Delta. Otherwise, PCRs just tell you, you know, SARS-CoV-2 positive or negative, and then we have to wait for the public health labs to do the sequencing to tell us what variant it is. This case, the PCR test could give us a signature. So we'll know, with Omicron, we'll know what I've predicted last week on national TV. and again, science is changing. A person is not science. I'm not science. I'm just a doctor interpreting data, and it's subject to being better informed with more data. But I'm predicting right now, I think it's going to be like eta and

lambda, because it's less transmissible than delta, I think it'll carve out its own ecological niche. But there would be no reason for it to supplant Delta unless it basically becomes almost like an infection of preference for the vaccinated. Wow. One thing that we've been talking about recently that concerns me, and I wanted to know what your thoughts on this were, seeing as you've spent your life in the medical establishment. My concern is that corporations, their goal is to continually make more money. Every year, they'd like to make more money than the last. This year, for the pharmaceutical companies, it's been an insanely profitable year because of the vaccines. I have a real concern, and I wonder if you share this concern, that they're going to try to continue to make the same amount of money.

And the best way to do that is to continue to encourage people to be vaccinated and to create new vaccines, even if they're not necessarily the right thing to do? If it's about making money, I'd almost prefer the vaccines get full FDA approval. You know, none of the vaccines are FDA approved. Even Pfizer's not FDA approved. That was a false talking point. Pfizer has a continuation of the EUA. BioNTech, which is not in the United States, got a biological licensing agreement. That still means they have to do a lot to get approved. They have to actually have a approved package insert. They have to commit to post-marketing studies on myocarditis. They have to give safety warnings on pregnancy. They're not there yet. So no product is approved in the United States. They're all emergency use authorized. Everybody needs to know that. Another false talking point that Pfizer was approved on August 23rd went all

the way up to the president of the United States. Since when in history do we have false talking points issued out of FDA meetings that go up to the President of the United States? So they're not approved. Listen, everybody's entitled to make some money. What seems unfair about this? What seems unfair about this is the government paid for the development costs. The government pre-purchased the products, even before they knew it was going to work or not work. And we know that with a new pharmaceutical company, a new product that was developed by a pharmaceutical company, whether it's a new company or existing company, we know a benchmark for a blockbuster drug would be a billion dollars of sales in its first year. That's a benchmark.

And typically half of that billion is spent on the sales force. There's an investment of billions of dollars in R&D. Do you know with the vaccines that Pfizer in its first year hit 33 billion? And now I think next year, 36 billion, no development costs. The government, no sales force because they don't have to sell the vaccine. They are just the suppliers to the government program. Is that a dangerous relationship? What's dangerous is not fair balance. If we had FDA-approved products, you'd see them on TV. When's the last time you saw a drug commercial? Let's say you have a drug that's for psoriasis.

Oh, my psoriasis cleared up. Remember the people diving in a pool and they don't have any psoriasis? They have beautiful skin. They're happy and they're dancing. Okay, you take a psoriasis drug, Joe. It says, warning, may cause tuberculosis. Get a TB test. Warning.

There's fair balance. That's the U.S. Drug and Cosmetic Act. That's the Landman Act. We actually have the Truth in Advertising Act. There must be fair balance. Every product has a risk and a benefit. Every product has a risk and benefit. We can never propose a product to anybody in the United States without fair balance. You mentioned myocarditis, and I have to tell you, since you had him on the show, and since we're both graduates of the University of Michigan, which by the way is, you know, I think it's one of the better places in the United States. He went to medical school there. I went to graduate school there. I went to UT Southwestern. I finished

top of my class. I'm Alpha Omega Alpha. You know, The doctors who are in the NOAA hot treat COVID-19 were no chump change. I went to the University of Washington in Seattle, top medicine residency program in the United States. I'm the most published person in my field in the world in history. I have 51 publications in COVID-19. I have US Senate testimony. A judge just relied on my testimony to overturn the entire mandates for the whole country. I'm telling you, when I had an interview with Tucker Carlson, he started getting worked up. He looked at the monitor. He goes, if you don't know who this doctor is, why don't you look at him? He goes, he has authority. And he's right. I do have authority, Joe. And the reason why I'm telling you this is because what's going on

here is that we have a situation where we have people in positions of authority. The person you had on here in a position of authority was Sanjay Gupta. And I'm going to pick on him a little bit because Sanjay Gupta came on Sesame Street, and I want to show the graphic if I don't have it. He came on Sesame Street, and what he did is with another CNN correspondent, he was actually seducing children into taking the vaccine. Yeah, I saw that. It's very disturbing. Okay. Seducing. I am telling you, no good doctor would do that because there must be risks and benefits. Did he tell the kids and the parents there's FDA warnings that this can cause heart

inflammation? Did the other CNN correspondent who's a mother, did she even show an ounce of concern? What Scott Atlas uses in his book, Joe, the term he uses is off the rails. We're off the rails. People in positions of authority are doing bad things, trying to seduce children into taking a vaccine that has official FDA warnings on it without giving fair balance. That's malfeasance. That's wrongdoing by people in position of authority. Particularly when you look at the risk versus reward benefit for children, right? The risk of COVID is very, very low for children. When they talk about children being hospitalized for COVID, they almost all have severe comorbidities. They almost all have severe comorbidities.

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

And this is the only time that's ever been forced on the American people that way, where things have been promoted. It's the only time it's ever been presented to the American people. You know, I can tell you what, we've got a history in this. If you go back to, this is Sanjay Gupta and the CNN correspondent. There was no fair balance there. I got nauseated when I saw that. It's just bizarre that he would do that. I don't understand it. Well, remember, he parroted a talking point that our head of the National Allergy and Immunology Branch parroted. They said that there was no data for ivermectin.

They said it was a horse dewormer. Now, either they knew or they should have known the 63 supportive studies and the over 30 randomized trials. Hey, that's a court of law. Either you knew or you should have known. A person in a position of authority either knew or should have known. Scott Atlas says they're incompetent. They don't know. That's what he says. Bring him on. He'll tell you. He thinks they're incompetent. I'm not so sure. It's either they knew or they should have known. Either one of those is good. Either they knew or they should have known. Either one of those is good. Either he knows or he should have known. Either one is not good.

Which one is it? Ask him. Ask him. Give him a call. Which one is it? Do you know about the myocarditis risks or should you know? He most certainly knows because I showed it to him on the show. I mean, that was a weird moment on the show, in fact, because he was trying to look

at the results and spin it the other way. And I had to go over it with him again, saying, no, no, you're looking at this wrong. It's the opposite of what you're saying. There's a four to six fold increase in myocarditis in children that are vaccinated versus the amount of children that are hospitalized from COVID for all causes. So they're four to six times more likely to get myocarditis than they are to even be hospitalized for COVID, which is crazy. Right. That's the Hogan analysis, not disputed by the FDA. You know, there's another point. This is a nuance. I want to get this out. There is a, I want to say, basically misleading paper in the New England Journal of Medicine that says that if one gets COVID, the respiratory

illness, they're more likely to get myocarditis than take a vaccine. Okay. I can tell you, I'm a doctor. I've taken care of hundreds and hundreds of COVID patients. I've advised on thousands. By the way, none of the media doctors outside of myself, Steve Smith, and gosh, maybe there's one other on there. I know George Farid, maybe. I think there's three doctors that America has seen on TV that's actually seen a COVID patient and actually treated a COVID patient. That's it. You know, the minority witness in the Senate testimony,

Ron Johnson, waited about two hours into the testimony after he was advising on America on how to handle COVID-19. He said, doctor, have you ever seen a COVID patient? You ever treated a patient? And he said, no, I haven't. He says, I have no more questions. I'm telling you, there is almost a fraudulent scheme to this. This New England General Medicine paper said, it said that myocarditis is more likely in those with COVID-19 than with the vaccine. What we know is that someone sick enough to be in the hospital who's in the ICU can have a small rise in troponin. That's the blood test indicating cardiac injury. But half the be in the hospital who's in the ICU can have a small rise in troponin. That's the blood test indicating cardiac injury. But half the people in the ICU have that anyway, from pneumococcal pneumonia, staph, sepsis, et cetera. It's just part of being in the ICU,

okay? The Chinese never called that myocarditis. They called that cardiac injury with COVID. The Chinese were right. It's just a troponin elevation. That's it. It's largely inconsequential. We don't do anything about it. That's very different than the explosive chest pain, early heart failure, EKG, and massive troponin rises we see with vaccine-induced myocarditis. They are two completely separate syndromes. What the New England Journal of Medicine paper is, they just use the numbers. If you have lots of adults being admitted to the ICU, you're going to have big numbers of people who have a trivial rise in troponin that's inconsequential. That's different than myocarditis after the vaccine, which has a lower occurrence rate. And why is it myocarditis after the vaccine? Like, why is the vaccine inducing myocarditis at such a high rate when

they're both, it's the spike protein is responsible for both of them, correct? I think it's the lipid nanoparticles. And the lipid nanoparticles are very important. Remember, parts of the body are more lipophilic. They take up lipids better than others. The heart is interesting. It relies on about 80% of its fuel is fatty acids versus 20% sugar. The skeletal muscles are just the opposite. They're, you know, they're 80% sugar, 20% fatty acids. So we know that the lipid nanoparticles are almost certainly taken up in the heart preferentially. They're definitely taken up in the ovaries and the corpus luteum, the ovaries taken up in the adrenals. We know that they go to the brain. There's been enough autopsy studies of freshly vaccinated people. You can see what gets

seeded. The vaccine goes everywhere in the body within a matter of hours. The vaccine seeds up in the brain, into the heart, the adrenals, the ovaries, elsewhere. And I think the vaccine actually loads the heart probably with more spike protein that one would ambiently get with a respiratory infection. Because of the liquid nanoparticles. The lipid nanoparticles. Excuse me, lipid nanoparticles. This is obviously something that most people should know. What you're saying is obviously information that most people, when you're talking about a population of 300 plus million people and 200 plus million people have been vaccinated already. I would like to think that this is information that people want to know. I agree. How much does it disturb you that this is being censored? Because on every other platform,

this conversation we're having right now would be censored. Every other online platform, social media, they would censor this for sure on YouTube. But what you're saying is incredibly important. Censorship that has suppressed for two years information on safe and effective early treatment and censorship on vaccine safety has led to large numbers of deaths, hospitalizations, and permanent disability. Joe, there is no bigger public health crisis than the impact of censorship in COVID-19. of censorship in COVID-19? We just did three hours, believe it or not. Isn't that incredible? I want to thank you. I want to thank you for your courage. Thank you for your dedication.

Thank you for your time, for coming here, and thank you for explaining this so eloquently. It's very disturbing, but I think we're all better off having this truth. Thank you. Thank you. If people want to, do you have a website that people can visit with more information? You can follow me on America Out Loud Talk Radio, the McCullough Report. I issue a weekly report to the country. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Bye, everybody. Thank you.