Saturday, December 4, 2021
HomeCOVID-19The Covid testimony of Dr Peter McCullough – Part 2: The vaccines...

The Covid testimony of Dr Peter McCullough – Part 2: The vaccines are killing people

-

YESTERDAY we published the first part of an edited transcript of a recent lecture delivered by Dr Peter McCullough in which he highlighted the astonishing absence of safety precautions and safety monitoring in relation to the experimental Covid vaccines. Today he explains there is no system – nothing – to protect the American people from vaccine damage.

***

What’s going on in the minds of these doctors and health care providers is the same. It’s what I call lockstep. They’re in lockstep. They’re thinking the same way. They’re frightened. They’re confused. They’re kind of scrambled. They can’t really explain or justify what they’re doing. Even awful things like in Scandinavia, like euthanasia for the seniors is going on. They can’t explain it. And they’re fearful. 

And I ask them, ‘Do you know who Tony Fauci is? Do you know who Bill G [is] ?’ They don’t even know this. I say, ‘Are you on Twitter?’, ‘No, we’re not on Twitter here.’ So it’s not going through social media, you guys, it’s not going through Twitter, it’s not going through the Gates Foundation, it’s not going through Pfizer . . . something’s in the minds of people and it’s global. And they’re in lockstep. And there’s a tiny fraction of people whose eyes are clear, their ears hear and they understand what’s going on. 

The most, most egregious thing is there have been no attempts to present or mitigate risks. 

All of you in pharmaceutical companies, as soon as there’s one or two deaths, there’s an immediate investigation. ‘What happened?’ We figure out maybe it interacts with other drugs, maybe there’s some background conditions. Maybe if somebody already had Covid, maybe that’s really the problem and we tried to vaccinate on top of that, which we shouldn’t. [There’s] no attempts to mitigate risks. 

If anybody asks your opinion on the vaccines, I suggest you start with this: say, ‘Listen, I’m concerned there’s been no report card. The CDC and FDA hold all the data’ . . . Demand a report card. Until we get transparency of data, this thing is not going to be corrected. 

January 22nd, we had a problem, at 27.1million Americans [vaccinated] we hit 182 deaths. This is VAERS system – Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting system – this is the weekly update. These are the permanent VAERS number, remember, a form gets filled out, 80 per cent of the time it’s filled out by a doctor or nurse who thinks the vaccine caused the injury. It gets assigned a temporary VAERS number. The CDC calls, and the CDC verifies that it happened. Okay? These are permanent: 182 deaths. 

We normally get 158 deaths a year, every year, in the system. That’s kind of the average, about 158 deaths across 70 vaccines. I just had one two days ago, I had a flu shot. We give 278million vaccines in the United States per year, 70 different vaccines. I’m not anti-vaccine. I’ve taken all the vaccines. I’ve been in India. I’ve taken even more vaccines. I’m telling you, 182 – if I was chairing a data safety monitoring board – and I probably should have, honestly – I would have shut down the programme with my committee. I’d say, ‘Listen, there’s too many deaths, we’ve got a mortality signal.’ Any one of you in pharmaceuticals know this, there’s been many drugs that never made it to market because of unexplained deaths. Okay? It didn’t stop there . . .  

 And so here we are, as of . . . a week ago: 14,506 deaths – and look at the numbers – over 200,000 hospitalisations, office visits or other urgent visits. You’ve heard of people scornfully talk about the unvaccinated in a hospital. But what about the vaccinated contributing to health care costs? Look at the vaccinated. Unfortunately, sadly, 18,439 permanently disabled people. That cost them. That costs society. That costs all of us. 

When the CDC and FDA reviewed myocarditis in June, I was on both of those calls. And I can tell you they were only looking at 200 cases. They now have 5,371 cases. The FDA has official warnings on this. The FDA is trying to tell mothers and fathers, ‘Don’t vaccinate your children. Warning, warning myocarditis can occur.’ 200 cases in June. 5,307 verified cases. I had one in my practice. Young guy going to college, he’s just trying to do the right thing. He wasn’t sure; he took the vaccine. Now he’s got SD segment elevation, sky high troponins, early left ventricular dysfunction, chest pain. He has to go on heart failure medications and colchicine and steroids and has three months of care and more EKGs and more echoes and this and that. And his parents are distraught and the tension is going up and up. The CDC officer called me to verify that that’s real. And I said, ‘Yeah’.  We went through it. He goes, ‘Okay.’  So, my patient is part of that 5,371. How many more do we need to convince people? 

There is a paper published by Jennifer Hogue that’s an analysis that has concluded that the chances of, with a young person under 30 getting the vaccine, the chances of being hospitalised with myocarditis – which my patient had happen – is greater than that child being hospitalised with Covid-19. You can’t make this thing up. It’s not a proposition that anyone would take, it wouldn’t. The temporal relationship – and this is shot one and shot two aggregated over time – the temporal relationship to getting the shot and death is exquisite . . . is exquisite. We now know from multiple independent analysis, people got frustrated because the CDC and FDA is not giving us the data. People got it and analysed [it]. 50 per cent of the deaths occur within 48 hours. 80 per cent of deaths occur within a week. They are tightly temporally related. McLachlan, from Queen Mary University in London, has concluded, by having independent reviewers review a representative sample of the deaths, 86 per cent of the deaths have no other explanation. Now on two occasions, in March and in June, the CDC, with no fanfare, put out on their website that CDC and FDA doctors, quote, ‘reviewed all the deaths and none were related to the vaccine’ unquote. 

I can tell you, I do this [type of] work for Big Pharma, for biotech and the NIH. Reviewing deaths takes a lot of time. All the hospital charts, all the labs, all the EKGs, the paramedics [unclear], what have you. It takes for ever. Two separate reviewers, then you have to have an adjudication process. For them to whip this up, with thousands and thousands of deaths, is not believable. And in March was the first time where I developed a conclusion of what’s going on is malfeasance, wrongdoing by those in positions of authority. And I think historians, historians will go back and look at this. This includes the deaths that occur in the vaccine centre. You know, people are on their phones and they’re doing CPR in the vaccine centre. Even those weren’t related to the vaccine? 

Now there have been some nursing home studies, one by [?] I believe in Denmark, and another one done, a similar type of analysis where in a nursing home setting, the conclusion was by independent reviewers where they actually had the charts, maybe 40 per cent of the deaths were really directly attributable to the vaccine and that there were other processes that played a role. Whether it’s 4 per cent, 40 per cent or 86 per cent, it’s way too high. And unfortunately, our seniors are bearing the brunt of this. The seniors are the ones we are trying to protect. They’re the ones who are dying after the vaccine. It’s pretty clear. It’s a steep, age-related phenomenon. Now, this paper, recently out by [?] and colleagues, have pitted the Covid-19 respiratory deaths and the seven-day Covid-19 vaccine deaths on these two figures. And even though the y axis is much different, the age relationship is the same, meaning the spike protein is probably the lethal nature of it. And it’s a matter of dose and duration and all the complications.

The [question] is: why are we vaccinating children? And in this analysis, it’s interesting, the paper actually goes through the entire age ranges. The conclusion of the paper you could draw is, if someone actually takes the Covid-19 vaccine for death as an outcome, one is actually more likely to die of the vaccine death than actually taking their chances of acquiring Covid-19 and dying of Covid-19. It is astonishing, because when you take the vaccine, it’s completely deterministic, right? It’s a 100 per cent chance it’s in your body. But people at this point in time, people who are contemplating taking the vaccine, they’ve lived a year and a half without getting Covid-19. Do you know what that means? That means that they’ve been dodging it pretty good . . .

But the point is, 15 per cent they actually can’t get Covid. They can’t get Covid. And a leading theory is maybe they have cross-immunity from other coronaviruses. But leading work by Dr Sabine Hazan in Ventura Hills, California, has shown that people who don’t get Covid, even they get exposed – and all of you clinically know this – if you have a household of six people in a house, it’s not six for six with Covid, never. It’s always one or two people don’t get it. And the reason is probably the microbiome. Believe it or not, those of you with a healthy microbiome, it can be scored according to grades of microbiome, and one of the leading good-guy bacteria is called Bifidobacterium, it is amazing that those with high Bifidobacterium, high microbiome scores can’t get Covid-19. And even the CDC agrees – 15 per cent of people, they estimate, cannot get Covid-19. Because when you take it in the nose and mouth, you’re always constantly swallowing, it gets in the GI tract right away. 

I personally had Covid in October of 2020, and I was in a research study that was actually doing sequencing, and I was in an FDA-approved protocol. So I know I had the British variant, the Alpha variant, and I know they sequenced it from what came out. So it’s interesting. 

So what’s happened over time is this vaccine has become weaponised, just like the kids can get myocarditis. It’s not right and it’s not rare. The other thing I think is malfeasance is to call anything ‘rare’. We never do that in clinical research. Never. The correct term in safety, pharmacovigilance, is ‘tip of the iceberg’. Whatever we’re seeing now in sporadic reporting is ‘tip of the iceberg’. VAERS could be an under-representation by a hundred-fold or even more. We think – we’ve done some analysis on this using CMS – we think on mortality, maybe it’s a multiplier of five. But the point is we never would say ‘rare’. And what the CDC has done, I think very, very disingenuously, is when they had 200 cases in June, they divided it by everybody who took the vaccine and said, ‘It’s rare.’ Well, you can’t do that unless you check everybody for myocarditis, unless you do an EKG and troponin. 

You can’t declare that they don’t have myocarditis unless you check for it. But Jessica Rose, in her first paper, showed that it’s cardiovascular, neurological and immunological [that] are the main non-fatal syndromes, and as shown here, they skew towards younger people, probably because the genetic material is more avidly taken up in younger cells. And so those cells, it depends on where the mosaic is, where they can express the spike protein in damage. And it’s very possible that those who have a greater uptake in the brain are going to express the neurologic complications, those that have uptake in the heart express cardiovascular, et cetera. 

So without pharmaceutical protection from the pharmaceutical laws, about deaths and about data safety monitoring boards and about pharmacovigilance, the vaccines will do more harm, right? So we don’t have anything to protect the American people. That’s the reason why everybody’s so on edge. Where’s the protection of our people? That’s what our agencies are supposed to do. And right now, that is being completely abrogated. 

So the vaccines have been considered not safe on either side of the Atlantic. This is not just an American problem. So the evidence-based consulting group in the UK – and Tess Lawrie is one of the leaders – but they are the principal consulting group to the World Health Organisation. I’m telling you they’re legit. They are very legit. They have analysed the [UK] Yellow Card system. And the Yellow Card system is just like our VAERS system. So it’s a good external validation of, is what (I am) saying, you know, tractable. Her conclusion: an immediate halt to the vaccination programme is required, whilst a full and independent safety analysis is undertaken to investigate the full extent of harms – Dr Tess Lawrie in May of 2021. 

So in medicine, we have what’s called Hill Bradford tenets of causality. When we see something bad going on and we’re using a drug or biologic product, we have to ask the question: is it actually causing the problem? And so the tenets of causality say, is there a temporal relationship? I showed you that: it’s really strongly related in time. This doesn’t happen any old time, it happens pretty much right when you get the shots. Is it internally consistent? Yeah. Death, all the other nonfatal events. Is it externally consistent? Sure: US, UK, EU. Okay. Is there a tractable, biologically plausible mechanism of action of how the vaccines could actually kill a human being? You betcha. If we get a vigorous uptake of the material and a vigorous run with the spike protein in a susceptible body, can it be lethal? Of course it can. Just like the virus can be lethal, and just like the same people who are dying with the virus are dying with the vaccine, it makes sense. It satisfies Bradford Hill tenets of causality. There’s no question about it. The vaccines are causally related to some, if not the majority, of everything you’re seeing here. I can tell you as a scientist, as a doctor, as an epidemiologist trained at University of Michigan School of Public Health, I can tell you with every fibre of my body, these vaccines are doing this. They are doing this. And anybody who tries to brush this off, ‘Oh, they’re not related’, what have you, I’m telling you, you have layer after layer of tractability in your analysis. 

- Advertisement -

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.

Kathy Gyngellhttps://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-editors/
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @KathyConWom on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.