The rush to vaccinate the entire population
Australian interview with Dr. Peter McCullough
Before we start, please take a moment to look at Dr. Peter McCullough’s bio. and credentials.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
This is a recent Australian interview that covers a broad range of subjects including coercion, spike protein, vaccinating children and pregnant women.
Dr. Peter McCullough on the rush to vaccinate the entire population
Mike Ryan
Dr. Peter McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the evaluation of medical evidence in contemporary issues in medicine, and is published widely. concerns have been raised about the Victorian government's paper called "Antibody Dependent Enhancement and SARS-cov-2 vaccines and therapies". Dr. McCullough is profoundly disturbed about government's rush to vaccinate the entire population, including those who are immune and not at high risk. Dr. McCullough has stated that he cannot recommend the COVID-19 vaccines based on all current safety data. Dr. McCullough, thanks very much for joining us. Thanks for having me. Look, the Victorian Government commissioned a paper published in October 2020, can you explain in simple terms, the main issue raised by this paper?
Dr. Peter McCullough
Well, I think the public needs to understand that doctors for a long time now have been concerned about vaccines backfiring. And when I mean backfiring vaccines should protect individuals from a disease, but it's possible the way the vaccines work, that they could cause certain biologic effects in the body to actually make the virus or a pathogen to make it actually cause a more serious infection, then then just not having a vaccine at all. So it's a form of backfiring.
Mike Ryan
Is antibody dependent enhancement, or ADE relevant only to mRNA vaccines, and are all the COVID-19 vaccines currently available mRNA vaccines?
Dr. Peter McCullough
No, the mRNA vaccines are the Pfizer and Moderna ones that are available in the United States, and then there are adenoviral vector vaccines, which are AstraZeneca, and Johnson and Johnson vaccines worldwide. There are two different mechanisms they all ultimately have the body produce the original Wuhan spike protein.
I think this is important for the listeners to understand these vaccines uniquely make the body cause the dangerous part of the virus. And it's now known that the spike protein circulates in the human body for two weeks after injection. It's the spike protein that causes damage to blood vessels, causes blood clotting damages the brain, the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the placenta, with a spike protein, we believe passes through breast milk.
And so it's just a unique aspect to the vaccine, the vast majority of vaccines we use are inactive, meaning that nothing circulates that's actually damaging to the body. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, we are directly causing the body to make a biologically active substance. And that substance circulates and damages the body. The hope is that it would create some immunity to COVID-19.
Mike Ryan
So who's at risk then from COVID-19 vaccines?
Dr. Peter McCullough
Well, right off the bat, there's a great concern that patients who have already had COVID-19, so their body is actually already seen the virus, indeed would have a problem in getting the vaccine that in a sense, the body would hyper react to again producing the spike protein. And indeed, that's the case there are two papers, one out of Newcastle, the other one out of Manchester, United Kingdom, and then one out of New York in United States.
And in those studies, about 25 to 30% of patients who volunteer for vaccination are doing it needlessly, they've had COVID-19. So they already have complete immunity. There's no reason for them to get vaccinated.
But under the ill advised suggestions of government agencies, they received the vaccine and in fact, they've had two to three fold increased risk of adverse events.
Mike Ryan
Since this paper was produced, what new data or evidence has now become available.
Dr. Peter McCullough
It's been shown in studies from Israel and France. And I've seen it my clinical practice as well,
after the first injection of the two injections of either Pfizer and Moderna, that patients have an increased risk of developing COVID-19. In fact, they contract the virus we prove it by identifying the antigen there. So it's not just a vaccine reaction. It's in fact, a real infection.
And the expert opinions that we have obtained from immunologists and biologists is that this is antibody dependent enhancement. It's early on, there's an immature library of antibodies directed against the Wuhan spike protein, and and the listener should understand the Wuhan spike protein is now extinct. In the United States. We have 14 different variants, but the Wuhan China variant is gone now. But the antibodies do rise in to a very high level directed against that earlier version of the spike protein and paradoxically, they help the next variant of COVID-19 that's inhaled or acquired by contact to come into the body and cause clinical infection. So I think everybody receiving the vaccine should understand the first of two vaccines, they're temporarily at increased risk because of antibody dependent enhancement.
Mike Ryan
What information should be made known as part of informed consent for vaccination?
Dr. Peter McCullough
I've looked up the American consent forms are slightly different than Australian. But the American consent forms state that the vaccination program is completely elective. It's optional, that the products are investigational, meaning that they're still under research. And that the side effects can range from just a mild reaction in the arm all the way to death. Now, when the package of the vaccine is open, there's no package insert. So there's no important safety information provided. There's no clinical data provided to the individual. So if one volunteers for the vaccine program, they have to understand that it's very much like being part of a research program. It's preliminary and not much is known regarding the vaccine. So in the United States, we have the Centers for Disease Control has the vaccine event reporting system, VAERS, and through the CDC website multiple times, they encourage the public as well as doctors to consult VAERS in order to understand what side effects and risks are emerging with the vaccines.
Mike Ryan
Does the person getting the vaccine actually comprehend the risk? It would seem that there is a narrative very similar to a used car salesman except instead of the car that could very well break down, it's a vaccine that also could very well break down.
Dr. Peter McCullough
It's true that there's so little known about the vaccines, for instance, they were only studied for two months in duration. So we have no idea, if patient's are protected beyond two months, we do know from the registrational trials, that the rate in two months of getting COVID-19 whether patients received the vaccine, or they received placebo was less than 1%. So if we were to kind of project out, we would anticipate that a vaccine program would have less than a 1% public health impact, ie patients who seek the vaccine have less than 1% chance of ever coming in contact with COVID-19.
Mike Ryan
Why are governments now targeting children for COVID-19 vaccination? And can you explain the risk to this group against the benefits?
Dr. Peter McCullough
It's important for their listeners to understand that we use vaccination in clinical practice, and so I'm very favorable towards vaccines, I've always used vaccines in my clinical practice, there are now about 70 of them on the market. The ones that are safe and effective we use according to our guidelines, but we vaccinate children in order to protect a child from a disease. So a child would be vaccinated, let's say against chickenpox, so they don't themselves develop chickenpox or chickenpox, pneumonia. We vaccinate college children in the United States against meningococcus, to protect them from meningitis while being a college. So vaccine is always to protect the child. With COVID-19 children have a very mild illness, many of them don't even realize that they've had COVID-19, so we actually have large fractions of children in the United States that are immune, they've already had the natural infection. And so a vaccine that would try to protect a child from basically having a cold wouldn't make any sense, particularly if the vaccine had a new risk to it. My concern is that the stakeholders who are advancing mass vaccination that includes the pharmaceutical companies in the United States is the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control in the US FDA, in Australia, it may be the TGA.
That these vaccine stakeholders have a different idea, and that their idea is that they're going to vaccinate children in order to protect adults. And so that really violates a principle of medical ethics. We would never ask a child to take on the risk of an investigational product in order to protect another individual.
And we've seen some gross examples of this the United States, for instance, there are some universities that are going to mandate that the students get the COVID-19 vaccine, but the faculty do not have to get it. The vaccine stakeholders in the United States that government agencies, CDC, FDA and NIH are not going to require their employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. So how could a private employer in the United States ever coerce or force their employees to take an investigational vaccine.
Mike Ryan
In Queensland our premier which is similar to a governor and our chief medical officer promoting AstraZeneca here to take the vaccine, came out the other day that they haven't yet had the vaccine. So it's a bit worrying, isn't it? When you got the government saying you must take the vaccine, and yet the government who's saying take the vaccine won't take it themselves? Look, in some countries, children after a certain age can be vaccinated without parental consent. Is this unusual? And is there any justification for this?
Dr. Peter McCullough
It's highly unusual in North Carolina, they just laid the groundwork for children aged 12 and above, to be able to consent and take the vaccine on their own without parental consent. They plan to move vaccination centers into the school and apply pressure and coercion to the students that is telling them they can't participate in sports or activities. They can't have a normal life as a student, unless they consent to having the vaccine. The vaccine has the risks, including death. And I can't imagine that a child age 13 is going to be confronted with a consent form for an investigational new product, in a sense consent for research, and then face the possibility of death and have to do it on their own, without the parents weighing in on this. I'm highly concerned as a parent, I'm highly concerned as an American and as a citizen of the world right now that something very wrong is going on.
Parents ought to be absolutely screaming at the top of their lungs about this, that that we never do this. We never ever do this. We strictly excluded pregnant women from receiving the vaccine. We never inject pregnant women with a dangerous biologic substance.
And yet, when the vaccine was rolled out, the government agency said pregnant women come on in we'll vaccinate you. In fact, pregnant women have and they've really paid the price with abortions and miscarriages.
Mike Ryan
You extended an invitation back in March to Australian authorities and the Therapeutic Goods Administration to help them, what was their response?
Dr. Peter McCullough
The TGA has produced guidance on the treatment of COVID-19 is simply a series of negative statements of telling what not do in the end the net conclusion be not to treat Australians for COVID-19 just let them suffer at home to the point where they can't breathe and then become hospitalized and in fact, many will die at that stage. It's unthinkable what government agencies are doing right now. But the term to be applied is what's called malfeasance, malfeasance is wrongdoing by those in authority. In my view the government agencies, these are staffers, these are people who don't see an examine patients, they don't have a fiduciary relationship. They don't have malpractice concerns to ever deal with that they really need to get out of medicine right now let doctors use the published literature. I've provided guidance and two sets of papers now that's why they use across the world.
We combined drugs that have signals a benefit, acceptable safety into regimens, and we've demonstrated that we can reduce hospitalization and death by 85%.
With early treatment of COVID-19, the government agencies have no role in opining on early treatment of COVID-19, I think they really need to back out and worry about other issues and honestly turn their attention towards cleaning up safety in the vaccination program.
Mike Ryan
It's pretty amazing. They sort of dig their heels in almost digging your heels in on steroids. And they become even more obstinate. And as you I think a while back said In a recent interview with us that they will be held accountable for crimes against humanity. Are countries, such as Australia, UK, US likely to change their vaccination strategies as more data becomes available on the effects of vaccines.
Dr. Peter McCullough
I think so, I drive past our vaccine center every day, and I can tell you it's empty. The word is out in the United States, we have about half of Americans have received at least one dose of the vaccine. And virtually every American knows of somebody who either died or was hospitalized after the vaccine. And the word is out now you can't really motivate Americans and the desperation among the vaccine stakeholders is extraordinary. I talked about moving vaccine centers into schools. Keep in mind that the vaccine centers that exist right now are empty, so to move them into the schools is almost an invasion. They're planning to move vaccination centers into churches just a few miles away from where they exist right now. There's been offerings. For instance, there's been lotteries, up to a million dollars if someone will take a vaccine that can be in a lottery for a million dollars, if a college student will take a vaccine, they're offering lotteries for them to win a full college scholarship, as an example. And this is such an exaggeration of what's going on right now, think about this. The idea is, you know, you want to take a chance with your life, we'll offer you a million dollars if you'll go for it. This is supreme coercion. And the principle number one of the Nuremberg Code that came out of world war two is that individuals decide what gets injected into their bodies, free of pressure, coercion, in fear of reprisal. Well, let me tell you a lottery for a million dollars is a form of coercion. We had a hospital in Texas, that was offering $500 to low income workers to take the vaccine and they wouldn't take it. And then the administrator said, Well, now we're going to force the vaccine on you. They said, We still don't want to take it, we don't think it's safe. And then the next day, the administrator said we're gonna start firing you. So in fact, workers started getting fired from the hospital and now they're organized into a giant lawsuit. I can tell you, those are forms of coercion. They are outlawed by investigational review boards. If this was a research study that was applied to an IRB, it would not be approved. If there was a $500 coercion. I can't imagine a raffle for a million dollars. I think historians are going to look back on this. And they're going to look at these examples and say, how distorted things have become, a vaccine that doesn't stop the virus 100%. United States, we've already had 10,000 vaccine failures, people getting sick and going into the hospital. So the vaccine clearly doesn't work for everyone.
And at the same time, we've had over 4,000 deaths, over 12,000 hospitalizations. In Europe, there's already been over 10,000 deaths. And now we're offering a lottery to say Listen, if you take the chance, we'll pay you a million dollars.
Mike Ryan
You mentioned the million dollars or the $500 use you left out the most appealing for example for me was de Blasio when he said, we'll give you a bowl of chips or fries to get the vaccine. I mean, only a bowl of fries to risk your life. I mean, that's a pretty poor incentive, isn't it?
Dr. Peter McCullough
It's amazing that any incentive has to be offered at all, you know, the stakeholders have used the phrase a needle in every arm. Well, I can tell you, a needle in every arm is not going to happen. In America now you can't convince somebody who's already lost a loved one due to the vaccine. I don't care what. And I can tell you in clinical practice, about 70% of my patients have received the vaccine. I'm an internal medicine and cardiology doctor, I see patients every day. Initially based on the original studies, I was encouraging the vaccine, so most of them got the vaccine in December, January and February. But based on the totality of data at this point in time, I can no longer recommend the vaccine. So we're at about 70% in adult medicine, which is probably appropriate. Thankfully, I've never lost a patient to the vaccine. But I've had family members of my patients who clearly have died as a direct result of the vaccine and they're angry. They're regretful, and they want answers.
Mike Ryan
Some very interesting days ahead, though, with responsibilities and accountability. Because as the truth comes out, and people realize that this is that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, and their health putting in great jeopardy. I'm sure there are more interesting turns and curveballs in the future. Dr. Peter McCullough, thank you very much.