Aletho News


Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend

Case Study: The Ivermectin Disinformation Campaign

By Margaret Anna Alice | October 20, 2021

I noticed your pumpkin spice horse dewormer meme on Facebook. I didn’t react because none of the emojis captured the mixture of sadness, disappointment, and surprise I felt upon seeing it.

I am dismayed to see that you, as scientifically literate as you are, fell for the pharmaceutical corporations’ smear campaign against a Nobel-Prize–winning medication. If someone as intelligent, savvy, and rational as you could be deceived by such a brazenly undisguised disinformation campaign, what hope is there for the stupefied masses?

That said, I believe you are intellectually honest enough to consider the possibility that exceedingly lucrative lies are being peddled by the media, self-appointed mouthpieces, celebrities, politicians, and agencies lavishly paid for and wielded by BigPharma. And I would hope you would want to investigate to determine the truth for yourself rather than religiously Trusting The Science™ and attendant sound bytes being shoveled down our gullets every conscious moment.

Recall the escalating levels of duplicity, corruption, and malevolence depicted over the course of Breaking Bad—and multiply that cumulative nefariousness a thousandfold. Then add a few trillion dollars of captive, globally mandated profits, and you’ll begin to grasp why the Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel has harnessed every available mechanism of mass formation to induce hypnosis, coerce compliance, and mute the voices of scientists and medical professionals who persist in speaking the truth at grave risk to their livelihoods, reputations, and lives.

Understand that it was necessary for the pharmaceutical corporations to discredit any proven, cheap, effective alternatives to the vaccines to secure the Emergency Use Authorization that granted the manufacturers 100 percent immunity from liability—an appealing arrangement considering Pfizer was surely eager to avoid another landmark penalty like the $2.3 billion the U.S. Justice Department described as the largest health care fraud settlement in its history.

The fox is guarding the henhouse, the wolf is howling incessantly about his trustworthiness, the snake is strangling any roosters who sound the alarm, and the coyote is stringing barbed wire around the farm. Meanwhile, the Stockholm Syndrome–afflicted hens are gobbling up their feed, clucking proudly about their beloved guards, echoing every talking point, and furiously defending the predators against those who remain skeptical about their motives.

Getting back to ivermectin. As The Dude would say, “New shit has come to light.”

You probably heard the viral hit piece about the Oklahoma hospital turning away gunshot victims due to an influx of people overdosing on horse dewormer paste. You may not have heard the hospital issued a statement refuting that lie, which included the following:

“NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose.

“All patients who have visited our emergency room have received medical attention as appropriate. Our hospital has not had to turn away any patients seeking emergency care.”

Rolling Stone was forced to issue a retraction, albeit still laden with biased language reinforcing the original unsubstantiated claims about ivermectin.

Perhaps you also heard about the Mississippi Health Department alert claiming “at least 70% of the recent calls [to the Mississippi Poison Control Center] have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin.”

I suspect you didn’t know that, too, was bunkum. It was actually 2 percent. And out of that 2 percent (eight people), just four called with questions about ingestion of the livestock form of ivermectin—and only one was advised to seek care.

Thanks to the tenacious detective work of investigative reporters Mary Beth Pfeiffer and Linda Bonvie as described in this exposé, the New York Times, the Washington PostThe Guardian, and the Associated Press were all forced to issue corrections. (Incidentally, Mary Beth was subsequently locked out of her Twitter account for performing actual journalism instead of toeing the propaganda line.)

The New York Times appended its correction two weeks after the original article was published, casually noting, “An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of recent calls to the Mississippi poison control center related to ivermectin. It was 2 percent, not 70 percent.”

The bogus 70-percent figure was then used by the FDA to launch its viral “You are not a horse” tweet, which raked up 23.7 million views in two days. How many of those people know that campaign was based on fallacious information? How many of those people care that they were ingesting and spreading lies about an exceptionally safe drug responsible for saving billions of lives since its genesis?

Still trust Big Media/Big Tech/the Ministry of Truth?

These are far from isolated examples of deceit. There are myriad instances of unabashed deception occurring in the pharma-funded media and technosphere. You’re right in that bots are a concern, but not in the way the propagandists are telling you. Rather, BigPharma fabrications of supposedly personal anecdotes are being propagated verbatim across thousands of social media accounts, and influencers are being paid to prop up a methodically crafted yet eminently fragile narrative that cannot survive unimpeded speech.

Also by the award-winning Mary Beth Pfeiffer, this heavily documented article dispels many of the falsehoods about ivermectin BigPharma has been cropdusting the public mind with. Here is another overview of the scientific literature by Dr. Colleen Huber, NMD.

PubMed search of ivermectin currently returns 9,085 results. Do you think there would be more than 9,000 peer-reviewed journal articles on a horse dewormer? Antibiotics are used by veterinarians, too—who in their right mind would deny the efficacy of antibiotics for humans because of that?

Add COVID to the ivermectin PubMed search, and you get 296 results as of this writing—many documenting the extraordinary potential and success of treating COVID patients with ivermectin.1

In addition to inspecting the peer-reviewed literature, I recommend watching videos by credible scientists and medical professionals who are following the ethical demands of their profession and genuinely trying to discover the facts rather than serving as propaganda dissemination machines.

Dr. Mobeen Syed, for instance, examines the peer-reviewed literature and often draws helpful illustrations to walk viewers through the findings at a granular level. His videos are aimed at medical students, but because of that, he tends to delve deeper into the science than most. Here is Dr. Syed’s YouTube channel. You won’t find his videos on ivermectin there, though, because, as I hope you now realize, there is a media/Big Tech blackout on scientific facts that interfere with their disinformation campaigns. You can find those videos by going to his Odysee channel and typing “ivermectin” into the search. This video on Ivermectin in Action offers a quick overview to help you understand how it can be used to combat SARS-CoV-2.

This real-time analysis of more than 1,000 studies compares the effectiveness of different medications for early treatment. Ivermectin presently has the most studies (63) after hydroxychloroquine (294), and the pooled effects indicate ivermectin resulted in a 66-percent improvement in symptoms. Studies focusing on the use of ivermectin in combination with zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, and other components of many early-treatment protocols suggest even higher efficacy levels.

This probably goes without saying, but hydroxychloroquine was subjected to the same slanderous tactics for the same reasons as ivermectin, and there are plenty of

An unwitting Goldstein, Trump played right into BigPharma’s strategy to discredit hydroxychloroquine by praising it—giving Trump Derangement Syndrome (a psychological disorder manufactured by and spread to tremendous monetary benefit and turnkey mass control by the media) sufferers the best and only reason they needed to dismiss it. They have been trained to plug their ears, cover their eyes, scream at the top of their lungs, and stamp their feet the instant any one of the Deplorables opens his mouth. One of the most effective instruments in the plutocracy’s toolkit, TDS has been brandished to misdirect the public for years, and it continues to work its magic despite Trump’s declining relevance, the embers of which the media will continue to fan as long as it pays dividends—just as Goldstein’s detested image is deployed in culturally unifying activities such as Two Minutes Hate:

In this undercover exposé featuring a Health & Human Services whistleblower, you’ll see that medical professionals at this federal facility are being threatened with loss of their jobs if they prescribe ivermectin to COVID patients (@ 10:44):

Think about this for a moment—why wouldn’t the public, the media, governments, health agencies, and everyone in the world be ecstatic about the possibility of an exceptionally cheap drug with more than four billion doses administered since 1998 and four decades’ worth of clinical data proving its safety and efficacy having the potential to save the lives of those who contract a disease people have been living in terror of for nearly two years now? What kind of contorted, harlequin world are we living in where lifesaving early-treatment protocols are being maligned as a threat? Don’t you find that suspicious?

If, after honestly examining the extensive scientific evidence demonstrating the value of ivermectin as a therapeutic against COVID—uncolored by the blinding biases that have been implanted in your consciousness to deter you from questioning, thinking for yourself, and researching the claims made in press releases issued from on high and regurgitated by talking heads, bots, and the unthinking public—you do come to realize they’ve been lying to you about ivermectin, ask yourself, What else are they lying about? Why would you believe anything they say, including their relentless efforts to demolish all who have the moral fortitude, intellectual prowess, and chutzpah to reveal the Big Lies being inflicted on the eagerly submissive populace?

And then consider this—what kind of next-level psychopaths would purposely sully the reputation of a drug that has the potential to drastically reduce mortality rates in COVID-19 patients? Again I ask, Why would you trust their credibility on any other aspect of the narrative they’ve concocted to drag us toward their rapacious and tyrannical ends?

Are you with me? Instead of permitting those malefactors to define your perception of reality, unplug from the Matrix (television, newspapers, radio, mainstream sources), detox from social media, and start conducting your own independent research outside the confines of what Big Brother allows you to see.

Scientific inquiry requires transparency, freedom from fear of reprisal, the liberal exchange of ideas, and encouragement of the pursuit of scientific truth—none of which are present in today’s COVID-1984 climate.

I realize this lengthy letter may seem like an overblown reaction to a meme intended to serve as light humor. When you understand that the vilification of a lifesaving medication has likely caused innumerable unnecessary deaths and will continue to do so if we serve as purveyors of such lethal smears, you might begin to fathom why I am responding this way.

If you want to understand the full scope of the mass subterfuge that has been staged since the beginning of this fiasco, you’ll need to venture off the trodden path and into the forest, where the free exchange of information is still permitted. You’ll need to shed the psychological barriers the cult leaders have installed to make you fear transgressing the perimeters they’ve defined for your mind.

They’ve lied about the people questioning the narrative. The people out here, in the forest, are nothing like what you’ve been bamboozled into believing. I am one of them. We are scientists; doctors; nurses; medical professionals; psychotherapists; professors; engineers; journalists; attorneys; writers; artists; musicians; filmmakers; truckers; teachers; construction workers; retirees; and creatives, independent thinkers, researchers, laborers, and ordinary folks of all stripes and colors. Some are Nobel Laureates; one knowingly risked a Nobel Prize.

We are the Book People of François Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451:

You will find we share many of your values—especially your respect for science, your commitment to truth, your critical thinking skills, and your concern for humanity. It is for all those reasons and many more that we are standing against this new religion masquerading as science, its self-appointed priests, their colluders, and the tyranny they are facilitating.

People of every political persuasion and philosophy can be found here. What unites us above the superficial partisan partitions is a sincere desire for truth, justice, and freedom to prevail. We are anti-propaganda, anti-oppression, anti-censorship, and anti-corruption—basically, we are aligned with those who have opposed totalitarianism throughout history.

I understand it can be unnerving departing from the comfort zone mapped out for you, but it is also exceptionally liberating to take ownership of your own knowledge and to begin awakening from the mass psychosis that has befallen the globe.

You will be astonished at how evident the puppet strings become on others once you’ve severed your own. You will be able to observe the puppetry from afar, with a clarity of vision that renders the manipulation laughably apparent. And you will have freed your mind from their control, having begun the arduous yet infinitely rewarding process of recovery from menticide.

If you have questions about any aspect of the COVID narrative, please don’t hesitate to ask. While you will need to follow your own path to discovery, I can point you to resources I have found helpful along the way. I have invested thousands of hours’ worth of research into nearly every aspect of this phenomenon, having gotten well over a year’s head start. Yes, you have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to deprogramming from the Covidian cult beliefs and discovering the genuine science that has been censored, but you can also benefit from hindsight and the revelations that have emerged in the meantime.

For example, this well-documented crib sheet covers 30 basic facts you may be unaware of due to BigPharma/Big Media/Big Tech’s suppression efforts.

Since my blog is aimed at awakening people precisely like you, perusing past posts may answer some of your questions. I suggest starting with my first article, A Primer for the Propagandized: Fear Is the Mind-Killer, and working your way forward. You will also find a surfeit of resources in my Recommendations Roundups (e.g., Recommendations Roundup #1 and the subsequent Down Under Edition).

Here are a few Einstein quotes to inspire you on your journey of discovery:

“Science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech.”

“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence.”

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”

“The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

Finally, understand that I am saying all this because I respect and care for you. I have faith in your integrity, critical thinking skills, reasoning capacities, and willingness to explore content untainted by dubious funding and conflicts of interest.

I firmly believe that if you detach from the immersive, mind-controlling mainstream media; start reading and listening to the voices of the thousands of silenced scientists, medical professionals, and other individuals of profound knowledge and conscience speaking out; and start formulating your own conclusions based on scientific evidence instead of the illogical and constantly fluctuating baby food taradiddles being spooned into the public’s gaping mouth, the scales will fall from your eyes and you will recognize the catastrophic depth and breadth of the fraud that has been wreaked on the world. When that happens, you will switch allegiance from the tyrants to the people, adding your talents to the growing phalanx of conscientious objectors doing everything within our capacity to resist the totalitarian technocratic dystopia the compliant have been sleepwalking toward like hens to the fox.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Victoria’s Dan Andrews: Those without vaccine passports will be excluded from economic and social activities

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | October 20, 2021

The Premier of Australia’s state of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, on Tuesday made it clear that COVID mandates that affect unvaccinated citizens and exclude them from many economic and social activities will remain in force for a long time – “well into the 2022,” as he phrased it.

Even those who have been vaccinated with both doses might find themselves excluded from parts of social and economic life unless they take the third, booster dose, Andrews also warned.

But given his explanation of the decision, who’s to say if these restrictions that many consider discriminatory may not continue for much longer – he mentioned the danger of new strains appearing that might derail any plans to open up. Andrews also revealed that he saw no reason to get rid of the orders once they are “up and running.”

“All the architecture that you’ve built, all the infrastructure, the culture that you’ve changed – why would you change that four or five weeks later? We will not be doing that here,” he is quoted as saying.

Andrews at once believes that vaccination is the only way to protect people – and that the virus “will be here for a long time.” His statements appear to be calculated to discourage the unvaccinated who might be hoping they would once again become members of society with full rights in a relatively short amount of time and prod them towards getting the jab.

The comments are also interpreted as Victoria’s authorities’ response to what other states, specifically New South Wales, plan to do. There, Premier Dominic Perrottet said that a majority of COVID restrictions will expire on December 1 when those who have not received the vaccine will once again be able to enter stores.

But Andrews took a hard line that went unopposed at the event he spoke at, including by announcing that there will be no opening up even when 90% of the state’s population has been double vaccinated. This despite the fact that in many places around the world COVID mandates are being eased once that number reaches 60%.

These comments come amid months of protests in Victoria’s capital Melbourne, that brought together thousands of people left jobless by the vaccination mandates. And, reports say, the statements made by Andrews show that their troubles will last at least a year.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | 3 Comments

Is Aspirin the New Horse Dewormer?

By Brian C. Joondeph, MD | American Thinker | October 18, 2021

Aspirin is one of those drugs that has been around forever. It is commonly used as a pain reliever, anti-inflammatory, and blood thinner. Surprisingly it may also have benefits in treating COVID.

A paper in Anesthesia and Analgesia published last spring titled, “Aspirin use is associated with decreased mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and in-hospital mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019.”

This was a retrospective, observational study of adult patients admitted to multiple hospitals in the U.S. between March and July 2020, in the early days of COVID. The primary outcome addressed by the researchers from George Washington University was the need for mechanical ventilation, which then, and still now, carries an extremely high chance of never leaving the ICU alive.

This was not a gold standard randomized prospective clinical trial. That would not be feasible in this situation since study patients were already hospitalized and critically ill. Remember in the early days, one needed to be extremely ill before even being admitted to the hospital rather than being sent home until sick enough to return and go straight to the ICU.

But the results were impressive. As reported last week by the Jerusalem Post,

The team investigated more than 400 COVID patients from hospitals across the United States who take aspirin unrelated to their COVID disease, and found that the treatment reduced the risk of several parameters by almost half: reaching mechanical ventilation by 44%, ICU admissions by 43%, and overall in-hospital mortality by 47%.

Why would aspirin be helpful for COVID, a respiratory disease? What if COVID is more than simply a lung disease or pneumonia? COVID is actually thought to be a microvascular disease causing blood clots, as described in the medical journal Circulation,

Although most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) present with a mild upper respiratory tract infection and then recover, some infected patients develop pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multi-organ failure, and death. Clues to the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 may lie in the systemic inflammation and thrombosis observed in infected patients. We propose that severe COVID-19 is a microvascular disease in which coronavirus infection activates endothelial cells, triggering exocytosis, a rapid vascular response that drives microvascular inflammation and thrombosis.

Note the thrombosis aspect, blood clots forming in the lungs and elsewhere in the body. Aspirin, as a blood thinner, reduces the risk of blood clots, explaining its potential benefit for COVID.

YouTube screen grab

For the same reason, the American Heart Association recommends,

If you have had a heart attack or stroke, your doctor may want you to take a daily low dose of aspirin to help prevent another. Aspirin is part of a well-established treatment plan for patients with a history of heart attack or stroke.

Add the appropriate caveat, which I would echo, “You should not take daily low-dose aspirin on your own without talking to your doctor. The risks and benefits vary for each person.”

How did aspirin get its start? Over 3,500 years ago, willow bark, known as “nature’s aspirin,” was used as a painkiller and antipyretic by ancient Egyptians and Greeks, and in a chemical synthesis by a Bayer chemist in 1897.

Aside from pain relief, it was found to have anti-platelet and anti-cancer effects. It’s also on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines, along with another familiar drug, ivermectin. The Harvard-based physicians’ health study in the 1980s found that low-dose aspirin reduced the risk of heart attack by 44 percent.

A recently published Israeli study found, “Aspirin use is associated with better outcomes among COVID-19 positive patients.” This included a lower likelihood of infection, disease duration, and hospital survival. In other words, aspirin works as both a preventative and as a treatment.

Aspirin is another potential therapeutic, along with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which is inexpensive, readily available, and relatively safe, and could save countless lives when used appropriately for COVID. An editorial in Anesthesia and Analgesia described aspirin for COVID as, “An old, low-cost therapy with a strong rationale.” And right on cue, it’s time for aspirin-bashing to commence.

At the same time as these papers showing potential benefits of aspirin for COVID hit the news, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, on Oct. 12, posted draft recommendations saying that, “Once people turn 60 years old, they should not consider starting to take aspirin because the risk of bleeding cancels out the benefits of preventing heart disease.” What curious timing.

Certainly, aspirin has potential side effects including an increased risk of bleeding. All medications have side effects and one can even die from drinking too much water. It always comes down to medical decision-making, balancing risks and benefits, in consultation with one’s healthcare provider.

The media wasted no time in using the suddenly released and new aspirin recommendations at the same time as news reports on aspirin benefits for COVID hit the news.

NBC reported, “Most adults shouldn’t take daily aspirin to prevent heart attack, panel says.” The New York Times echoed, “Daily low-dose aspirin no longer recommended by doctors, if you’re healthy.” Healthline went further, “Doctors warn daily aspirin use can be dangerous.” Driving or walking across the street can be dangerous too.

Sound familiar? How many adults have been taking low-dose aspirin daily for many years, based on the decades-old Harvard study? I have as I have a family history of cardiovascular disease and my internist and I agree that the benefits outweigh the risks, despite the new recommendations.

Similarly how many patients have been taking hydroxychloroquine for years or decades for arthritis or lupus, without dying from the drug as Fox News crank Neil Cavuto warned last year? How many take ivermectin to prevent parasitic infections? Now we can add aspirin to the list of once safe and effective medications — that’s now on par with cyanide or strychnine.

It seems the medical establishment and the media want to squash any potential COVID therapeutic, especially the inexpensive ones, instead pushing vaccines and extremely pricey medicines like Merck’s new $712 COVID drug.

The media described ivermectin as horse dewormer or animal paste, seemingly unaware that it is an FDA-approved medication for human use and was once honored with a Nobel Prize. Watch Joe Rogan put CNN’s medical mouthpiece, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, in a virtual chokehold until he tapped out and admitted to CNN’s irresponsible reporting and lying about ivermectin.

Aspirin also has non-medical uses including as a stain remover, garden enhancer, and dandruff remedy. I would love to hear President Trump mention the potential benefits of aspirin for COVID and see the news headlines of Trump recommending people ingest detergent, fertilizer, or shampoo to treat COVID.

Welcome to simple aspirin, the media’s new horse dewormer.

Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a physician and writer.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Colin Powell’s Own Staff Had Warned Him Against His War Lies

By David Swanson | Let’s Try Democracy | October 17, 2021

In the wake of WMD-liar Curveball’s videotaped confession, Colin Powell was demanding to know why nobody warned him about Curveball’s unreliability. The trouble is, they did.

Can you imagine having an opportunity to address the United Nations Security Council about a matter of great global importance, with all the world’s media watching, and using it to… well, to make shit up – to lie with a straight face, and with a CIA director propped up behind you, I mean to spew one world-class, for-the-record-books stream of bull, to utter nary a breath without a couple of whoppers in it, and to look like you really mean it all? What gall. What an insult to the entire world that would be.

Colin Powell doesn’t have to imagine such a thing. He has to live with it. He did it on February 5, 2003. It’s on videotape.

I tried to ask him about it in the summer of 2004. He was speaking to the Unity Journalists of Color convention in Washington, D.C. The event had been advertised as including questions from the floor, but for some reason that plan was revised. Speakers from the floor were permitted to ask questions of four safe and vetted journalists of color before Powell showed up, and then those four individuals could choose to ask him something related – which of course they did not, in any instance, do.

Bush and Kerry spoke as well. The panel of journalists who asked Bush questions when he showed up had not been properly vetted. Roland Martin of the Chicago Defender had slipped onto it somehow (which won’t happen again!). Martin asked Bush whether he was opposed to preferential college admissions for the kids of alumni and whether he cared more about voting rights in Afghanistan than in Florida. Bush looked like a deer in the headlights, only without the intelligence. He stumbled so badly that the room openly laughed at him.

But the panel that had been assembled to lob softballs at Powell served its purpose well. It was moderated by Gwen Ifill. I asked Ifill (and Powell could watch it later on C-Span if he wanted to) whether Powell had any explanation for the way in which he had relied on the testimony of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law. He had recited the claims about weapons of mass destruction but carefully left out the part where that same gentleman had testified that all of Iraq’s WMDs had been destroyed. Ifill thanked me, and said nothing. Hillary Clinton was not present and nobody beat me up.

I wonder what Powell would say if someone were to actually ask him that question, even today, or next year, or ten years from now. Someone tells you about a bunch of old weapons and at the same time tells you they’ve been destroyed, and you choose to repeat the part about the weapons and censor the part about their destruction. How would you explain that?

Well, it’s a sin of omission, so ultimately Powell could claim he forgot. “Oh yeah, I meant to say that, but it slipped my mind.”

But how would he explain this:

During his presentation at the United Nations, Powell provided this translation of an intercepted conversation between Iraqi army officers:

“They’re inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.


“For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

“For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?


“And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”

The incriminating phrases “clean all of the areas” and “Make sure there is nothing there” do not appear in the official State Department translation of the exchange:

“Lt. Colonel: They are inspecting the ammunition you have.

“Colonel: Yes.

“Lt. Col: For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.

“Colonel: Yes?

“Lt. Colonel: For the possibility there is by chance, forbidden ammo.

“Colonel: Yes.

“Lt. Colonel: And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.

“Colonel: Yes.”

Powell was writing fictional dialogue. He put those extra lines in there and pretended somebody had said them. Here’s what Bob Woodward said about this in his book “Plan of Attack.”

“[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light. Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of ‘forbidden ammo,’ Powell took the interpretation further: ‘Clean out all of the areas. . . . Make sure there is nothing there.’ None of this was in the intercept.”

For most of his presentation, Powell wasn’t inventing dialogue, but he was presenting as facts numerous claims that his own staff had warned him were weak and indefensible.

Powell told the UN and the world: “We know that Saddam’s son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam’s numerous palace complexes.” The January 31, 2003, evaluation of Powell’s draft remarks prepared for him by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (“INR”) flagged this claim as “WEAK”.

Regarding alleged Iraqi concealment of key files, Powell said: “key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.” The January 31, 2003 INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and added “Plausibility open to question.” A Feb. 3, 2003, INR evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell’s remarks noted:

“Page 4, last bullet, re key files being driven around in cars to avoid inspectors. This claim is highly questionable and promises to be targeted by critics and possibly UN inspection officials as well.” That didn’t stop Colin from stating it as fact and apparently hoping that, even if UN inspectors thought he was a brazen liar, US media outlets wouldn’t tell anyone.

On the issue of biological weapons and dispersal equipment, Powell said: “we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK”:

“WEAK. Missiles with biological warheads reportedly dispersed. This would be somewhat true in terms of short-range missiles with conventional warheads, but is questionable in terms of longer-range missiles or biological warheads.”
This claim was again flagged in the February 3, 2003, evaluation of a subsequent draft of Powell’s presentation: “Page 5. first para, claim re missile brigade dispersing rocket launchers and BW warheads. This claim too is highly questionable and might be subjected to criticism by UN inspection officials.”

That didn’t stop Colin. In fact, he brought out visual aids to help with his lying

Powell showed a slide of a satellite photograph of an Iraqi munitions bunker, and lied:

“The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions . . . [t]he truck you […] see is a signature item. It’s a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.”
The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and added: “We support much of this discussion, but we note that decontamination vehicles – cited several times in the text – are water trucks that can have legitimate uses… Iraq has given UNMOVIC what may be a plausible account for this activity – that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives; presence of a fire safety truck (water truck, which could also be used as a decontamination vehicle) is common in such an event.”

Powell’s own staff had told him the thing was a water truck, but he told the U.N. it was “a signature item…a decontamination vehicle.” The UN was going to need a decontamination vehicle itself by the time Powell finished spewing his lies and disgracing his country.

He just kept piling it on: “UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons,” he said.

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this statement as “WEAK” and added: “the claim that experts agree UAVs fitted with spray tanks are ‘an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons’ is WEAK.”

In other words, experts did NOT agree with that claim.

Powell kept going, announcing “in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and “not credible” and “open to criticism, particularly by the UN inspectorates.”

His staff was warning him that what he planned to say would not be believed by his audience, which would include the people with actual knowledge of the matter.

To Powell that was no matter.

Powell, no doubt figuring he was in deep already, so what did he have to lose, went on to tell the UN: “On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and called it “Not implausible, but UN inspectors might question it. (Note: Draft states it as fact.)”

And Powell stated it as fact. Notice that his staff was not able to say there was any evidence for the claim, but rather that it was “not implausible.” That was the best they could come up with. In other words: “They might buy this one, Sir, but don’t count on it.”

Powell, however, wasn’t satisfied lying about one scientist. He had to have a dozen. He told the United Nations: “A dozen [WMD] experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein’s guest houses.”

The January 31, 2003, INR evaluation flagged this claim as “WEAK” and “Highly questionable.” This one didn’t even merit a “Not implausible.”

Powell also said: “In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who’d been sent home.”

Powell’s staff called this “WEAK,” with “Plausibility open to question.”

All of this stuff sounded plausible enough to viewers of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. And that, we can see now, was what interested Colin. But it must have sounded highly implausible to the U.N. inspectors. Here was a guy who had not been with them on any of their inspections coming in to tell them what had happened.

We know from Scott Ritter, who led many UNSCOM inspections in Iraq, that U.S. inspectors had used the access that the inspection process afforded them to spy for, and to set up means of data collection for, the CIA. So there was some plausibility to the idea that an American could come back to the UN and inform the UN what had really happened on its inspections.

Yet, repeatedly, Powell’s staff warned him that the specific claims he wanted to make were not going to even sound plausible. They will be recorded by history more simply as blatant lies.

The examples of Powell’s lying listed above are taken from an extensive report released by Congressman John Conyers: “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War.”

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

The U.S. Re-Joining the UNHRC Speaks Volumes on Human Rights Violations Impunity

By Ramona Wadi | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 20, 2021

Much has been said about the Biden Administration’s re-joining international institutions, after former U.S. President Donald Trump broke away from the standardised participation in international agreements and consensus. Notably, the international community singled out the U.S. under Trump for the so-called “deal of the century”, which veered away from the two-state paradigm that has steered international diplomacy on Palestine and Israel for decades.

Trump’s decision to quit the UN Human Rights Council in 2008 was described by former U.S. envoy to the UN Nikki Haley as determined by the body’s “unending hostility towards Israel.” Echoing Haley, the former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the council “a protector of human rights abusers.” Perhaps Pompeo had conveniently forgotten the U.S.’s own track record of backing military coups which disappeared tens of thousands of political opponents. The same goes for the correlation between U.S. financial aid and human rights abuses – the countries which benefit from U.S. aid uphold similar political trajectories to the U.S.

Not much difference has been articulated in terms of U.S. President Joe Biden deciding to re-join the UNHRC in 2022. U.S. Secretary of State Ned Price stated his “concerns” about the organisation. “We will vigorously oppose the council’s disproportionate attention on Israel, which includes the council’s only standing agenda item targeting a single country.” The Trump administration’s departure from the international community was based on the same alleged premise.

Agenda Item 7, which focuses upon Israel’s violations, is a permanent fixture at the UNHRC and the source of much criticism and allegations of “anti-Israel bias” – a term popularised during the Trump era and extended now through the Biden administration. At the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also accused the body of being anti-Israel and the U.S.’s return to the international fold as working in Israel’s benefit.

The UNHRC is just as farcical as the UN. Whether the U.S. re-joins or decides to boycott, nothing changes in terms of human rights violations. A U.S. seat on the UNHRC will not alter Biden’s foreign policy, nor will it impede the U.S. from warfare and violence. In 2020, the U.S. military spending increased by 4.4 percent from 2019, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The U.S. is the largest military spender globally, making up 39 percent of the global expenditure in 2020. Anyone rejoicing at the U.S. decision to re-join the UNHRC might do well to consider the political violence it is applauding.

Neither Trump nor Biden have portrayed a stance based on human rights values. The same can be said for previous administrations. However, much has been lost in terms of the significance with which Trump exposed and applied U.S. foreign policy.

As long as international institutions exist, and human rights rhetoric remains the only threshold in terms of purported accountability, the mainstream narrative will not take stock of the fact that the U.S., like international organisations, operates from within a manipulation of the human rights and democratic framework. The result is a cycle of violations which are then isolated in terms of the oppressed and the oppressor, to forge a collective concern about human rights. Having a few permanent scapegoats, such as Cuba, for example, which has faced decades of dead-end international support against the U.S. illegal blockade, allows the U.S. to preside over the democratic debacle, even as it annihilates democratic expression throughout the world.

With or without the U.S., the human rights debacle will continue unabated. If, according to the U.S., Cuba does not deserve a seat at the UNHRC, what has the U.S. done to deserve it? In the same vein, given the U.S. inclusion, what values is the UNHRC seeking to impart?

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Who gains from a sectarian war in Afghanistan?

By Finian Cunningham | RT | October 19, 2021

Two bombings in as many weeks causing hundreds of casualties at Shia mosques in Afghanistan raises fears of a sectarian war erupting in the Central Asian country.

The surge in atrocities comes at a challenging time for the new Taliban government which is trying to establish international recognition as the legitimate authorities of Afghanistan. Much of the Taliban claim to rule relies on assurances that it would bring stability and security following the historic withdrawal of all US troops on August 31.

The Taliban – like the majority of Afghanistan’s 38 million population – is mainly of Sunni muslim faith. It has every incentive, however, to protect the lives of the minority Shia community. The bomb massacres at the two mosques in the northern city of Kunduz on October 8 and Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, on October 15 were claimed by the ISIS affiliate group, Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISIS-K).

This same group carried out the attack at Kabul airport on August 28 killing 13 US troops and over 160 Afghan civilians. It is officially designated as an enemy by Washington as well as by the Taliban. But is there a case of “my enemy’s enemy might be useful”?

The Taliban have vowed to root out ISIS-K and other Al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists. They all share an ultra-conservative profession of Sunni Islam, but it is not in the interests of the Taliban to see Afghanistan descend into a sectarian war when it is trying to mobilize national reconstruction after 20 years of war against the United States and other occupying NATO forces.

ISIS-K and other Al-Qaeda affiliates are also known by other terms, including Daesh, Takfiri or Wahhabi. They view Shia as heretics and liable to be put to death. Their cult-like theology put them in a different category from the Taliban who are rational players committed to national development.

But the surge in sectarian killings in Afghanistan has bigger geopolitical connotations.

conference in Moscow planned for October 20 will bring together regional countries to chart a way forward for Afghanistan’s reconstruction. Attending the summit will be senior Chinese government officials and Taliban representatives. While the group is listed as a terrorist organization in Russia and banned, its delegation has been invited to Moscow to discuss the situation in the region.

Beijing has offered investment of billions of dollars to help Afghanistan recover from years of war devastation. The Taliban, for their part, have welcomed the “fraternal” contribution from China.

All regional countries have much to gain if Afghanistan can harness stability and economic development. The country’s prodigious mineral wealth and its strategic geographical location for transport and energy links make Afghanistan a potential linchpin in China’s Belt and Road Initiative and more generally Eurasian economic integration.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed deep concern about the growing presence of terrorists in Afghanistan and a potential spread of extremism to the neighboring former Soviet republics.

China has also legitimate security concerts over threats posed by thousands of Uighur Islamists who have been engaged in terrorist violence in Afghanistan and Syria. Beijing has been assured by the Taliban that Kabul will not provide a safe haven for Uighur terrorists to launch attacks into its neighboring western province of Xinjiang.

In the first Shia mosque bombing on October 8, ISIS-K reportedly named one of its suicide bombers as a Uighur member.

The geopolitical significance seems clear. The surge in violence in Afghanistan is aimed at preventing the country from creating a stable government and to stifle a postwar reconstruction from cooperation with regional partners, in particular China.

In contrast to the overtures from Beijing, Moscow, Iran, Pakistan and others, the United States has sought to throw obstacles in the way of Afghanistan’s new Taliban government. Of course, revenge over Washington’s shameful retreat from the country is to be expected.

But Washington’s freezing of Afghanistan’s foreign reserves estimated at $10 billion as well as cutting off international finance from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund at a time when the country is facing an acute humanitarian crisis goes beyond vengeance. There seems to be a calculated agenda to consign Afghanistan to a fate of permanent failed state and to ensure that it won’t become a thriving part of the Eurasian model. In short, vindictive sabotage.

This then begs the question of whether the US has some clandestine role in supporting ISIS-K and its sectarian war agenda?

Speaking about the Shia mosque bombings, Iran’s President Ebrahim Raesi has openly accused the United States of sponsoring the growth of Daesh terror groups in Afghanistan with the purpose of inciting sectarian conflict.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said the atrocities demonstrated that the objective of ISIS-K was to embroil Afghanistan in religious civil war and he also accused the American CIA as being responsible for the bloodshed. He claimed that the US has transported Daesh militants from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan for a new phase of dirty war.

The collusion between US military intelligence and Islamist extremists has been spotlighted elsewhere. Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai claimed in 2017 that the Pentagon had assisted the infiltration of his country with ISIS brigades.

In 2018, the Russian government said it recorded transport of ISIS militants across Afghanistan with the use of “unidentified helicopters”.

We also know that massive supplies of weaponry and finances were funneled by the Pentagon to jihadi terror groups in Syria under the guise of arming “moderate rebels”.

During its occupation of Iraq, the US is documented to have used a counterinsurgency policy known as the Salvador Option in which pseudo-gangs led by American special forces deliberately incited sectarian violence as a way to manage political interests. The British authorities deployed similar dirty war tactics during the conflict in Northern Ireland and in other colonial-era campaigns.

With all of these things in view, it bears asking the question: is sectarian war in Afghanistan being fomented by powers who do not want to see the country prospering in a peaceful and stable Eurasian region led by China and Russia?

Finian Cunningham is an award-winning journalist. For over 25 years, he worked as a sub-editor and writer for The Mirror, Irish Times, Irish Independent and Britain’s Independent, among others.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

The cultural genocide in Palestine: On Sally Rooney’s decision to boycott Israel

Sally Rooney attends a photocall during the Edinburgh International Book Festival on 22 August 2017 in Edinburgh, Scotland. [Simone Padovani/Awakening/Getty Images]

Sally Rooney during the Edinburgh International Book Festival on 22 August 2017 in Edinburgh, Scotland. [Simone Padovani/Awakening/Getty Images]
By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | October 19, 2021

The pro-Israel crowd on social media was quick to pounce on award-winning Irish novelist, Sally Rooney, as soon as she declared that she had “chosen not to sell … translation rights of her best-selling novel, ‘Beautiful World, Where Are You’ to an Israeli-based publishing house”.

Expectedly, the accusations centered on the standard smearing used by Israel and its supporters against anyone who dares criticise Israel and exhibits solidarity with the oppressed Palestinian people.

Rooney’s laudable action was not in the least ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semitic’. On the contrary, it was taken as a show of support for the Palestine Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), whose advocacy is situated within anti-colonial and anti-racist political discourses.

Rooney, herself, has made it clear that her decision not to publish with Modan Publishing House, which works closely with the Israeli government, is motivated by ethical values.

“I simply do not feel it would be right for me, under the present circumstances, to accept a new contract with an Israeli company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid and support the U.N-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people,” she said in a statement on 12 October.

In fact, Rooney’s contention is not with the language itself, as she stated that “the Hebrew-language translation rights to my new novel are still available, and if I can find a way to sell these rights that is compliant with the BDS movement’s institutional boycott guidelines, I will be very pleased and proud to do so.”

Rooney is not the first intellectual to take an ethical position against any form of cultural normalisation with Israeli institutions, especially those that directly support and benefit from the Israeli military occupation of Palestine. Her position is consistent with similar stances taken by other intellectuals, musicians, artists, authors and scientists. The ever-expanding list includes Roger WatersAlice Walker and the late Stephen Hawking.

The BDS movement has made it abundantly clear that, in the words of the movement’s co-founder, Omar Barghouti, “the Palestinian boycott targets institutions only, due to their entrenched complicity in planning, justifying, whitewashing or otherwise perpetuating Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian rights.”

Of course, some are still not convinced. Those critics of the BDS movement intentionally conflate between anti-Semitism and a legitimate form of political expression, which aims at weakening and isolating the very economic, political and cultural infrastructures of racism and apartheid. The fact that numerous anti-Zionist Jews are supporters and advocates of the movement is not enough to make them reconsider their fallacious logic.

One of the ‘politest’ denunciations of Rooney, appearing in the Jewish Forward magazine, was penned by Gitit Levy-Paz. The author’s logic is puzzling, to say the least. Levy-Paz accused Rooney that, by refusing to allow her novel to be translated into Hebrew, she has excluded “a group of readers because of their national identity.”

While the Forward writer is guilty of confusing political ethics and nationality, she is not the only one. Israeli Zionists do this as a matter of course, where the Zionist ideology and the Jewish religion – and, in this case, language – are quite often interchangeable. As a result, the definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ has been stretched to include anti-Zionism – though Zionism is a modern ideological construct. Since Israel defines itself as a Jewish and Zionist state, it follows that any form of criticism of Israeli policies are often depicted as if a form of anti-Semitism.

One of the most interesting aspects of this conversation on language is that the Hebrew language has been used by the State of Israel since its establishment in 1948 as the language of oppression. In the minds of Palestinians, anywhere in Palestine, Hebrew is rarely the language used to communicate culture, literature, social coexistence and such. Instead, every military ordinance issued by the Israeli army, including closures and home demolitions, let alone the proceedings of military court hearings, and even the racist anti-Palestinian chants in football stadiums, are communicated in Hebrew. Palestinians are then excused if they do not view the modern Hebrew language as a language of inclusion, or even innocuous, everyday communication.

These realisations are not the outcome of daily experiences only. Successive Israeli governments have passed numerous legislations over the years to elevate Hebrew at the expense of Arabic. For over seven decades, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people has been coupled with the erasure of their culture and their language, from the Hebraicisation of historic Arabic names of towns, villages and streets, to the demolition of ancient Palestinian graveyards, olive groves, mosques and churches, the Israeli ethnocide is a top item on the Israeli political agenda.

The Israeli Nation State Law of 2018, which elevated Hebrew as Israel’s official language and downgraded Arabic to a “special status”, was the culmination of many years of a relentless, centralised Israeli campaign, whose sole purpose is to dominate the Palestinians, not only politically but culturally as well.

All that in mind, the hypocrisy of Israel’s mouthpieces is unmistakable. They welcome, or at least remain silent, when Israel tries to demolish and bury Palestinian culture and language, but cry foul when a respected author or a well-regarded artist tries, though symbolically, to show solidarity with the oppressed and occupied Palestinian people.

The Palestinian boycott movement is conscious of its morally-driven mission, thus can never duplicate the tactics of the Israeli government and official institutions. BDS aims at pressuring Israel by reminding peoples all over the world of their moral responsibility towards the Palestinians.

BDS does not target Israelis as individuals and, under no circumstances, does it target Jewish individuals because they are Jews, or the Hebrew language, as such. Israel, on the other hand, continues to target Palestinians as a people, downgrades their language, dismantles their institutions and systematically destroys their culture. This is rightly referred to as cultural genocide, and it is our moral responsibility to stop it.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , | 1 Comment

Christopher Steele, author of the infamous ‘Trump pee-tape’ dossier, stands by his ludicrous claims in a fawning ABC interview

By Michael McCaffrey | RT | October 18, 2021

Former MI6 man Christipher Steele is the subject of an obscenely vapid ABC documentary, with a contemptible interview by George Stephanopoulos that’s so deferential it’s like watching a first date that should be an interrogation.

Just as MI6 super spy James Bond is back in theatres with No Time to Die, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele is back in the spotlight with the story that refuses to die, in an ABC ‘documentary’ titled Out of the Shadows: The Man Behind the Steele Dossier, now streaming on Hulu.

Steele came to fame as the shadowy force behind the Steele Dossier, the document which was the spark that lit the Trump-Russia collusion fire that was doused in gasoline by obsessive partisan media coverage and numerous, spurious government investigations for the last five years. The dossier claimed that then-candidate Trump was “colluding with Moscow” and that those devious Russians had “kompromat” on Trump in the golden form of a “pee tape.”

Steele’s “coming out of the shadows” consists of him sitting down with George Stephanopoulos and having a cuddle session on fancy sofas in a posh apartment.

Stephanopoulos is the perfect choice for the softball interview since he and Steele have a lot in common – they’ve both worked for the Clintons. Stephanopoulos as adviser to President Bill Clinton and Steele as de facto dirt-finder for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

ABC tried to stretch the excruciatingly thin gruel of this supposed ‘interview’ into an hour-long documentary by adding talking heads from their own newsroom. They failed, as the end result is a one-hour show that is hilariously shallow and vapid, even by ABC News standards.

Out of the Shadows spends considerably more time rehashing the “history” of Russia, Vladimir Putin and Trump than it does actually talking to Steele. Russia is deemed “a rogue state virus spreading westward with its villainy,” Putin a “KGB killer,” and Trump a “threat to American democracy.” In other words, it’s standard establishment media talking points.

Steele’s background is somewhat explored, but being the ever-diligent super spy that he is, Steele never explicitly states that he worked for MI6. I guess he doesn’t want to blow his cover.

What Steele actually says in this interview is of strikingly minimal impact. Thanks to Stephanopoulos’ anti-journalistic, anti-adversarial, deferential approach, no new ground is broken.

It’s well-known that Steele didn’t just compile the dossier, he actively pushed it to media outlets, in effect working to try and scupper Trump’s election campaign. The fact that he was ostensibly working for Democrats at the time certainly makes it appear as if he was a part of a wider disinformation/interference operation, but of course that’s a topic Stephanopoulos whistles past in this patty-cake chat.

Steele admits to no wrongdoing or error, despite the U.S. intelligence agencies “eviscerating” his findings after thorough investigation, and the FBI labelling him “untrustworthy.”

The issue of the “sources” Steele uses doesn’t get the attention it deserves either, as it’s reported that he only used one “key collector,” but Steele is quick to make clear it was “one collector” but not “one source.” That seems like a distinction without a difference.

As the documentary reports, that one collector was not a person in Moscow, but actually someone in Washington DC whose name is not revealed. The Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported this person claimed that the information being given to Steele was “word of mouth and hearsay.” In other words, Steele was acting less as an intelligence expert seeking truth with his dossier than he was being a gossip columnist spreading rumor and innuendo.

Steele’s declaration, “I stand by the work we did, the sources we had, and the professionalism we applied to it,” is as devoid of substance as the rest of the interview.

The most damning aspect comes toward the end, and even that is soft pedaled, when Stephanopoulos asks Steele about both the dossier’s allegation that Trump counsel Michael Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russian intelligence and about the pee tape.

Cohen denies a Prague meeting ever took place, and since he has now flipped against Trump, one would assume he’s telling the truth. But Steele’s resolve remains, as he conjures up a wild scenario where Cohen is still lying because he wants to avoid being charged with treason.

Stephanopoulos, of course, lets this utter lunacy pass almost without notice. He could’ve asked Steele how exactly Cohen got to Prague, since his passport shows no travel to the Czech Republic. Or pressed Steele to provide details or at least a passable explanation for how that meeting could possibly have taken place? But he didn’t, he just smiled and continued playing footsie with Steele.

The ‘pee tape’ is the most salacious accusation in the dossier, and despite it never surfacing and no evidence it exists, Steele still stands by the claim…sort of. He says that the tape “probably does” exist but that he wouldn’t “put 100% certainty on it.”

When Stephanopoulos asks why the tape hasn’t come out, Steele replies that “it hasn’t needed to be released…because I think the Russians felt they’d got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president.”

Look, I loathe Trump, always have and always will, but this sounds like the ravings of someone deeply infected with a ferocious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is maybe why he is still taken seriously by the equally afflicted establishment media.

The more you know about Steele, the more readily apparent it becomes that he’s an absolute charlatan and bullshit artist masquerading as a serious intelligence expert. He’s no James Bond, he’s not even George Smiley. He’s more like a cross between Mr. Bean and Inspector Clouseau, who should, like this vacant and vacuous interview/documentary, be relentlessly ridiculed and righteously disrespected.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Film Review | , , , | Leave a comment

The Covid testimony of Dr Peter McCullough

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | October 18, 2021

IN A recent lecture titled ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Safety and Pivot to Early Treatment: Risks of Scientific Censorship and Reprisal’, and a veritable tour de force, Dr Peter McCullough described his emerging understanding of the ‘catastrophe’ of Covid-19 ‘gene-transfer’ vaccines, the ‘loaded weapon’ of the spike protein they produce, and the high effectiveness of early Covid treatments, tragically denied by governments.

The video of the lecture can be seen here, with a summary provided by Cracknewz.

Today we publish the first section of our edited transcript (subsequent parts will follow over the rest of the week) in which Dr McCullough expresses his deep sense of unease at the stripping of his academic titles and at the inexplicable and unprecedented absence of any safety precautions or monitoring of the novel emergency authorised vaccines.


Part 1: Cancelled for telling the truth

I think the reason why everybody is here is we have a sense that something very bad is going on in the world. And I’m here to tell you, I think it is. And . . . it’s influencing all of us, each and every one of us. And it may have started a long time ago. I’m not an expert on this at all, and I know people are working on this. But somehow we’ve all been drawn into this and it’s affecting us. And I think we all have a sense of urgency that now’s the time, now’s the time when things look relatively normal around us in terms of the bricks and mortar and our social structures and our employment, it’s relatively normal now. And I think all of us have a sense it’s not going to be normal soon with the pace that things are moving. So now’s the time, everyone’s asking what can they do? If you feel tension right now and you feel some emotional distress, and if you feel as if things aren’t going right . . . right now, I think your perceptions are correct. And if your perceptions are correct, now’s the time for action.

I’ve recently taken a position as a chief medical adviser for the Truth for Health Foundation, which is a foundation centred out of Tucson, Arizona, which is dedicated to exactly what we’re doing right now. I am the president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, and I’ve been the president for five years. I helped form that organisation. I donated to it. I think I’m going to be stripped of that title with . . . within a week. I’m the editor-in-chief of Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. I think I will be stripped of that within a month. Today, I was stripped of the editorship of Cardiorenal Medicine, a Swiss-based journal. And in the last year, I have lost my job at a major health system with no explanation and no due process. I’ve been stripped of every title that I’ve ever had in that institution. I’ve received a threat letter from the American College of Physicians . . .

So whatever’s happening is happening [is] because of our efforts to have some scientific interchange. We are participating in a topic of public importance – that’s the reason why every table [here] is full. What we are doing is lawful. What’s not lawful and what’s not right is what’s happening with respect to censorship and the threat of reprisal.

I’m the senior associate editor of American Journal of Cardiology and if Bill Roberts can keep me in there, I’ll hang in there. My tagline is America Out Loud, talk radio.  . . . I am from Texas originally, I went to Baylor University undergraduate, then UT Southwestern. I went on to the University of Washington in Seattle. I came to Michigan. I did three years of general internal medicine actually in Grayling area to pay back my student loans . . . And then I went to University of Michigan School of Public Health and got my Master’s degree in epidemiology. I was kind of trained to do this public health work. I joined Beaumont Hospital under Dr Joel Kahn and Bill O’Neill, and I trained in cardiology. I took my first job at Henry Ford, was the programme director at Henry Ford, became the Chief of Cardiology at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. Returned to Beaumont, was a division chief for a long time. Was the chief academic scientific officer for St John Providence Health System and then moved on. I wanted to finish up down in Texas and I held wonderful positions in Texas.

But I’m not new to the national scene. Even early on when I was at Henry Ford, I was on President Clinton’s advisory panel to health care. When I was at Beaumont, I testified in front of the Congressional Oversight Panel regarding a product label expansion of drugs, and I was on C-SPAN for seven hours getting fried by the senators. So I wasn’t new to this. But what’s new to me now is to be in a position of – and I’ll take it – of authority. OK, I’ll take it because somebody has to. [applause from audience]

I had a window last year when this whole thing started, I had a window to America through a Republican journal, The Hill. And I’m kind of a middle of the road person. I’m not a really hardcore right winger, but The Hill took me and I was a regular contributor to The Hill. And then I changed over and actually started my own radio programme on America Out Loud talk radio, The McCullough Report, because I needed the window. In our medical field, we publish in journals to each other, doctors and scientists. We talk to each other. But the public is largely excluded from that big conversation.

And our journal publications are slow. We’re talking two to five years to get something in print. You know, this thing hit us. We needed to get now. We needed to get things published now. We needed speed because it’s a mass casualty situation. So that’s what this is all about. These letters behind my name, I predict, will be progressively erased. I took one off there this week. It’s going to happen. It’s going to happen because there’s powerful forces at work, far more powerful than we can possibly think of, that are influencing anybody who is in a position of authority. And I already told you, I’m going to take authority.

So the first authoritative position I’m going to take is this: as an American and as a consumer, for new biologic products, demand safety, safety, safety . . . safety . . . We have a situation where there has been an injection of a substance into half of Americans’ bodies. And there’s yet to be a report to America on (its) safety. Astonishing.

Well, it wasn’t the case back in 1976, there’s Gerald Ford getting his swine flu vaccine, right, swine flu in 1976. We got to 25 deaths, 550 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is ascending paralysis. There were 55million Americans vaccinated, 220million people in the country at that time. [They] shut it down. Not safe. It was very transparent. Americans were watching. Sure, there was some controversy: were the deaths related, not related? It didn’t matter. Unexplained deaths didn’t matter. Shut down the programme. [It was] not safe. It was considered a debacle . . . and it went down as a debacle . . .

In my view, we’ve been gambling. We’ve watched a gamble go on in our country. And the gamble has gone like this: this virus came in and we’re going to test out some new tech, and we’re going to gamble with, not just America, we’re going to gamble with the world. This is a gamble of extraordinary, extraordinary implications. We didn’t have to and we don’t have to, but we did. And this is the gamble. The gamble is genetic gene transfer technology. The FDA considers the current American vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson as gene transfer tech. That’s what it is, it’s gene transfer tech.

There were 24 of these platforms that have been around for decades. They were all designed to transfer genetic information. Most of the time, just to transfer in the RNA to produce a missing protein. For instance, a deficiency disease called Fabry disease, a deficiency of α-galactosidase. I ran the programme in Dallas on this, an interesting medical problem. But it was just simply a way of producing their deficient enzyme. Seems pretty harmless, right? Give the cells an injection of messenger RNA about once a month, maybe once every three months, and then the body could make this needed protein. Okay? There’s been other ones. There’s been attempts in heart failure, in cancer. The only messenger RNA gene transfer technology drug that’s on the market is called Patisiran, and that is a drug that produces a small interfering messenger RNA that interferes with the production of what’s called transthyretin, which is a protein that causes amyloidosis, which is a medical condition.

So we actually do have one of these on the market, but there’s 24 others that have largely been losers, and they’ve been losers in many ways because they couldn’t produce enough of the deficient protein, or they couldn’t actually be reverse transcribed and produced the gene that’s needed to install on the genome.

But these were ready to go, and the adenoviral DNA shown on the left of the screen here. That’s Johnson & Johnson. So that’s an adenoviral vector where these replication incompetent virions come in and they inject DNA into the cytoplasm. The DNA is taken up into the nucleus. From the nucleus, the messenger RNA for the Wuhan spike protein is produced. That messenger RNA then produces the spike protein. But because it’s not a synthetic RNA, it actually is digested within RNA [unclear]. But the issue is, there’s so much of the DNA that goes into the nucleus, there is so much of its persistent effect that Johnson & Johnson can basically get by with one shot, which is amazing. So it is a ton, I can tell you right now, from a genetic perspective, it’s a ton of material that’s going into the human body.

With the messenger RNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna are different. These are synthetic messenger RNAs. They have what’s called a nucleoside analogue cap at the three prime and five prime end. And those caps are sturdy. Normally, a messenger RNA is used once it’s disposed of – used, once disposed of. This one is used over and over and over again and stays in the cells for a long time. We don’t know how long, but it looks long. It looks very long.

And we are working with scientists all over the world. And there is a belief now that the messenger RNA can survive cell division so a parent cell can give it to daughter cells. And it looks like the messenger RNA can actually be transferred in little packets called microsomes to other cells. So it’s not just a mosaic of cells that gets the messenger RNA. It may be much more proliferative than that. And the messenger RNA itself is used over and over again to produce the spike protein. The spike protein is the little red characters there. And when they’re expressed on the cell surface, that’s an abnormal protein.

For the first time in human history, we have a biologic product that’s telling our body to produce an abnormal protein. You know, the design of this was to produce a normal protein, but this is to produce an abnormal protein. It’s not just an abnormal protein, it’s the [unclear] or the spine on the surface of the virus. The virus is the ball. The little spines, you’ve seen a million cartoons of it, that’s the spike protein. 1,200 amino acids, probably about eight to 12 glycosylation sites and two major segments to it, S1 in S2 and what connects them is what’s called the furin cleavage joint.

The furin cleavage joint is what was manipulated, we believe, with gain of function research in the lab in China. So in this little red character here, which looks pretty benign, it is kind of a loaded weapon, if you will. And what I mean by weapon, it’s now known that the spike protein itself is independently pathogenic. It causes damage itself, okay? And I think everyone accepts this. When I mean damage, it damages the cells in which it’s produced. When it’s on the cell surface, the body immediately recognises it’s not supposed to be there and attacks. When the spike protein breaks free, which it does, it circulates in the human body for about two weeks. In a paper by Ogata and colleagues – this is being filmed and this is going to be fact-checked, so I want the fact-checkers to see that – Ogata et al, Harvard circulates in measurable and plasma for two weeks after a messenger RNA vaccination. After the second shot, it’s no longer measurable, probably because the antibodies produced dampen it down. It doesn’t mean the spike protein is gone. We don’t know how long the cells produce the abnormal spike protein.

It would have been wonderful if the spike protein just stayed in the arm. If the deposit, the 1cc injection in the arm, and if the production of the spike protein would have just stayed in the arm and the immune reaction stay in the arm, that would have been, I think, the best possible scenario for these vaccines. Not the case. When the Ogata paper broke, everyone said, ‘Oh boy, now the spike protein is circulating.’ Okay? Then, when the first man who took the vaccine, he took shot one, shot two, when he died in Germany and had an autopsy, the question was: where is the spike protein being produced in the body? And that’s when that autopsy hit and it was in the brain. It was in the heart. It was in all the essential organs. We knew we were in trouble. We knew we were in trouble.

Never once did we have a vaccine or any injection in the human body that got distributed via lipid nanoparticles throughout the body within a matter of weeks and then set up shop to produce a damaging protein. This protein circulates. It damages organs. It damages endothelial cells. Blood cells. It causes blood clotting. There is a wealth of scientific papers on this. There’s nothing about the spike protein that’s good. These little red characters here on the slide are lethal. They’re lethal.

They play a part in the fatal nature of the natural infection. And the Chinese have published a ton of studies on this. Everything we learn about the spike protein is bad. There’s a paper now showing the spike protein interacts strongly with the p53 and the BRCA genes, which are the cancer genes in the human body.

Now, if you’re going to have spike protein for a day or two, a week or two, probably not a big deal, but if you’re going to have a spike protein on shot one and shot two and shot three and shot four, in year one, in year two, in year three, who can imagine what’s going to happen to the human body? How many runs can a human body take with a potentially lethal pathogenic spike protein that was manipulated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and now available for human consumption by injection across the world?

That’s what we know about these vaccines. Everything we know about it, you would agree, is a dangerous mechanism of action. We’re late on this, we’re late, but we got this in press, Bruno and colleagues, 57 authors, 17 countries, where the title of the paper is ‘SARS-CoV-2 Mass Vaccination: Urgent Questions On Safety’. Highlighted parts there: if we don’t have safety boards, data safety monitoring boards, critical event committees, human ethics committees assigned to these programmes, we have no hope of shutting this down or even evaluating for safety.

I’ve chaired over 24 data safety monitoring boards. I chair two for the National Institutes of Health right now. I know what I’m talking about. I know about data. I have over 650 publications in the National Library of Medicine, 45 on Covid. I’ve reviewed more reports and made more inferences on scientific data, I think, than anybody in the world right now and certainly in my field – in heart and kidney disease – in history. I’m not fooling around when I say our governments owed it to us from the beginning to have a data safety monitoring board. Where’s the DSMB? The data safety monitoring board is an independent group of experts without a stake in the outcome. The sponsors of the US programme are the FDA, the CDC and then, behind them, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J. None of those entities are qualified or capable or even ethically charged to evaluate mortality or outcomes. They personally have a stake in the outcome of this. We never let the company decide on causality of a problem. We never let a company tell us if a product is safe. We always have external bodies.

And by the way, when these came through the clinical trials, there were data safety monitoring boards. And over two months, when they select relatively healthy populations, they did look okay after two months. The problem is, once they got broadly used in the population, we realised, holy smokes, we not only don’t have a data safety monitoring board – you know everyone’s asked to sign the consent form, saying they’re in a clinical investigation, it does say that – we actually didn’t have any guard-rails on this to . . . if a problem was there, to be able to tell America and tell the world, ‘Listen, we’ve got a problem. We’ve got to do something about it.’ Okay? We didn’t have the fundamental safety mechanism.

Historians will write about this. Okay? This is kind of like Tuskegee. There was a terrible experiment, there’s been terrible historical things. Not having a data safety monitoring board will go down in history as a colossal mis-step in public health. How in the world can we take the sponsors of the programme – the FDA, the CDC, Pfizer, Moderna – and let them be in charge of safety? And even worse, how can we let them not ever produce a safety report, never do a safety press briefing? Nothing.

The messenger RNA or adenoviral DNA, the production of the spike protein is a dangerous mechanism of action. It injures cells, tissues and organ and endothelial damage, and we have papers to support that all the way. The spike protein circulates at least for two weeks. Body fluid, donated blood, that explains the shedding events that . . . you know so well. No genotoxicity, teratogenicity or oncogenicity studies. They wouldn’t be needed for vaccines from a regulatory perspective, but they would for gene transfer technologies.

There’s a concerning reduced fertility study by Moderna submitted to the European Medical Association. Fertility did go down in animals. It wasn’t a huge drop, but it was real. There was a concerning biodistribution study, Pfizer in Japan, where the lipid nanoparticles hyper-concentrated in the ovaries. As the Chinese had shown us a couple of years earlier with a paper by Ning and colleagues. As I mentioned, there are no safety committees. No restriction of properly excluded patients from the trials.

When the trials were done, they properly excluded the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna and J&J, for a reason. Exclusions must be justified with all the regulatory authorities and the Office for Human Research Protections for a reason. Pregnant women, women of childbearing potential who cannot not guarantee contraception, Covid-recovered, suspected Covid-recovered, those with severe allergies. Why are they excluded? You have to justify it. The two reasons to exclude patients from clinical trials is: no opportunity for benefit and excess opportunity for harm. And these groups were excluded.

When we finish a study and a drug is on the market, we never just let the excluded groups get the drug on a whim. Or, ‘Why don’t we just try it out now?’ There’s never been a drug where we say, ‘You know, we kept pregnant women out of it. It could be dangerous. Let’s just go ahead and give it to them.’ Never. That should be an alarm bell. The behaviour of doctors and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology that says to vaccinate women with no randomised trials safety data ought to be a giant alarm bell going off.

Alarming. That’s a bellwether. Pregnant women and the foetus are the special situation in medicine. We have pregnancy categories for this. We bend over backwards. We only use drugs where we have lots of years of experience. We know they’re safe in pregnant women. We only allow inactivated flu, tetanus and pertussis, all inactivated. That’s it. That’s it. And I published an opinion editorial . . . where I said, ‘Listen, this is pregnancy Category X. Any new seizure drug, any new diabetes drug – no different, no different. This should be alarming.’

I have a lot of interaction with doctors. I don’t have a single doctor who can look me in the eye and support what’s being done to pregnant women. What I see in their eyes is fear, shame, guilt. They know they’re wrong, but they’re confused, and they can’t seem to understand why they’re wrong. Doctors and those with them – and there’s a lot with them – are in a trance right now. They’re in a trance. They’re in a mass psychosis. And it’s worldwide.


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 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.


Part 3: How they cooked the books

This the third part of an edited transcript of a recent lecture delivered by Dr Peter McCullough. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here. Today’s section starts with his explanation of the sleight of hand by which the Pfizer vaccine won FDA approval before going on to discuss the implications of vaccine’s limited efficacy.

PFIZER was not approved. And this meeting that happened on August 23rd, it was Pfizer, it was the FDA [but] there was no academic advisory board and no independent presenters – [it was] a closed meeting. And they looked at the data. And what happened . . . probably will go down as one of the greatest regulatory sleights of hand, regulatory malfeasance of all time. Pfizer got a continuation of the Emergency Use Authorisation, not approval. BioNTech – it was a shared intellectual property product – BioNTech got split off and said, ‘Oh, they have a separate product that’s a legally distinct product. It may be medicinally distinct.’ BioNTech gets conditional approval, but it doesn’t exist yet in the United States, it gets a draft package insert, which is very scant, with a lot of post-marketing obligations for myocarditis information that basically says, ‘We don’t know if this is safe in pregnancy at all.’ And what came out of that meeting was a talking point that Pfizer was approved. That went all the way up to the President of the United States. Pfizer was approved.

That triggered an entire wave of vaccine mandates for a product that was thought to be approved when it really wasn’t. And the person who signed the letter to BioNTech Comirnaty – the product that doesn’t exist yet, that got conditional approval – Dr Gruber, within a week resigns from the FDA.

I’m telling you, anybody can tell that something is deeply wrong in the regulatory environment in the United States . . . These sequences of events will go down in history as American lives were lost. There’s been a failure of these vaccines to do what they’re supposed to do. When they came out of clinical trials, I was testifying in the US Senate on November 19th and I’ll never forget, I was a lead witness, and our final question was, ‘Doctors, do you have any question regarding the Covid-19 vaccines?’ All I knew on November 19th of 2020 was that the vaccines [was] by press release – and I think it was Pfizer first – that they had 90 per cent vaccine efficacy. But the rates of Covid-19 in both placebo and vaccine groups were less than 1 per cent.

How could that be? I mean, November, we were stoking, we had, you know, I think our laboratory rates went 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent, you know, there was a lot of Covid in November and there was a ton in December. How could they have done trials where people’s rates of Covid-19 were less than 1 per cent? That’s what we knew from the press release. So I will never forget, I was recovering from Covid myself. I had this smothering N95 mask, I was on the Senate floor and I literally just sat there and I said nothing. And Harvey Risch next to me and George Fareed next to me – nothing, not a statement. I’m so glad I didn’t say anything because things, as they played out, what we saw in the clinical trials was the following: that there [were] very few hospitalisations and deaths, but there was no benefit at all. There were a few cases of Bell’s palsy, but there weren’t any of these horrific vaccine deaths or these horrific strokes or myocarditis, what have you. They looked pretty clean out of clinical trials.

So people would ask me, ‘What do you think about the vaccines?’ I’d say, ‘Well, I don’t have a choice. The patients can take them if they want to.’ So I didn’t recommend them or not recommend them. And 70 per cent of my practice – I practise non-invasive cardiology and internal medicine, I maintain my boards in both, as long as I can maintain my board in both – took the vaccine. 70 per cent took the vaccine. People in my family took the vaccine. They did it patriotically. Some of them – remember, there were no mandates back then. No mandates. And people were actually waiting for the vaccine. What’s happened? Well, it turns out that with the legacy data in this recent paper by MMWR, that the vaccine efficacy held up. Moderna turns out to be at 120 days post vaccine, 92 per cent vaccine efficacy. Pfizer 77 per cent. And Janssen 68 per cent – that’s Johnson & Johnson. Now these aren’t randomised data, but they try to calculate using fair statistics in a population. This is the first data, by the way, that the CDC has released with respect to differential vaccine efficacy. Right? So is one better?

Remember, they keep telling you, ‘Just take a shot.’ You say, ‘Well, which one should I take?’ ‘Well, just take any one.’ Oh, come on, we’re Americans. We like to make choices, right? So this is your first official . . . so you see, you’d think they’d come out on the news at least and tell you this, right? But this . . . so it looks pretty good. But there’s no safety data in this manuscript, and I can tell you, look at the numbers 15, 17, 14. Look at the denominators. Wait a minute. You’ve had 168million people take the vaccines. You know, these are pretty scant data. And in the text of it, there are six major limitations.

Number four, take a look at it. ‘The vaccine efficacy estimates were adjusted for relative potential confounders.’ And by the way, the outcome on the previous side was hospitalisations, but ‘residual confounding is possible’. Let me tell you a residual confounder. You know what determines who gets hospitalised or who doesn’t get hospitalised in United States? If they got early treatment. That’s what makes a difference. Not, not a vaccine. [applause] So take a look at these papers. Every single paper that makes a claim on a vaccine prevents hospitalisation and death. Your next question is, ‘Who received early treatment and who didn’t?’ ‘Oh, we didn’t think of that. Sorry.’ Give me the next paper, because it’s not legit. And look at fifth, ‘Product specific vaccine efficacy by variant, including the Delta variant, was not evaluated.’

Well, let me tell you what, the Delta is brand new. We have what’s called legacy data, and then we have Delta. And right now we’re 99 per cent Delta and everything, everything you saw in that slide is obsolete. And the failure of the vaccines, and truth revealed, happened a few months ago in July. This was a British naval vessel. 3,700 fully vaccinated sailors go out, they go in the Mediterranean, they stop at, I think the island of Crete, sailors had a little fun, before you know it, there’s a breakout on the boat – note sailors, no girls – on the boat, breakout, Delta, and they’re passing it to each other. Right in line with this, there was a Houston wedding, a fully vaccinated wedding – you guys have been involved in these family things, right, where you can’t go to a wedding unless you’re vaccinated? – well terrific, they all went to the wedding vaccinated and sure enough, there was an outbreak of Delta. There was a private flight, Democratic lawmakers fly from Texas to Washington. They get Delta, and Kamala Harris has to scramble to the Walter Reed to get tested and what have you.

In fact, Farinholt at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, studied the Houston wedding, and he proved that the fully vaccinated can actually acquire and carry and pass to other people Delta. Farinholt proved that. Our CDC director came on TV and told Americans that towards the end of July, saying, ‘Listen, the vaccines can’t stop Delta,’ she said it herself. And in fact, the CDC has told us this. Barnstable County in Massachusetts, here’s an outbreak, people in congregate settings. The light blue is the fully vaccinated? What’s the problem here? The fully vaccinated are more of the Covid contagion than the unvaccinated? This is the CDC telling us this. This isn’t me. This isn’t my opinion. This is the CDC telling us this. Mayo Clinic in Boston, a company [unclear], they have over a million sequenced samples. They had great data from Rochester County, Minnesota, 25,000 individuals. They calculate vaccine efficacy. But look at July as Delta shades in, Moderna is holding up at 76 per cent vaccine efficacy, Pfizer’s at 42 per cent vaccine efficacy. OK?

Pfizer is 30 micrograms of messenger RNA, Moderna is 100 micrograms of messenger RNA. They’re very different products. Our CDC and FDA has not presented that to America, that they’re very different products. We don’t know about Johnson & Johnson, but the differential choice of the products has also been something that has been whitewashed by our agency. ‘Just take a vaccine, take any vaccine. Just get vaxed.’ ‘Well, no. Wait a minute. They are different products.’ Israel, which is probably giving us the best forecast of what we’re going to be like, is telling the story. And you don’t have to be a University of Michigan epidemiologist to figure this out, you guys. Fully vaccinated patients with Covid-19: 86 per cent. Population fully vaccinated, 84.4 per cent. It’s superimposable. The vaccine, Pfizer, 30 micrograms, has completely and totally failed. [applause] We’ve just got to call it. Just call it. You can’t sugar-coat it. You can’t sugar-coat this. This is complete and total failure. Israel’s post-vaccination curve in their country is bigger than their pre-vaccination curve. If you had asked the question, would Israel have been better off not to vaccinate a single person? Answer: yes, from an epidemiology perspective, yes. It is a complete and total failure. What are they doing in Israel? Doubling down. Boosters. They’ve got 11million people in the country. They’ve already boosterised two million people. Guess what? They already have papers published – there’s one from Haifa, Israel – published, already showing booster failures.

I’ve already had one in my clinic. I didn’t realise this until two weekends ago. Two of my Webexing, smart engineer-type people who work on the computer at home have avoided Covid-19, faithfully got Pfizer number one, faithfully Pfizer number two – do you know that earlier this year you could just show up at CVS and Walgreens and get another one and they’d give it to you? What, wait a minute. This is strict regulatory approval. This is Emergency Use Authorisation. You just don’t get a booster for the hell of it. Yeah, you do. Believe it or not, you didn’t need to wait for approvals of boosters on September 17th. People can just do it on their own and CVS and Walgreens and these vaccine centres don’t care. It’s like, the more the merrier. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. These are supposed to be regulated products. How in the world . . . they’re supposed to be keeping track of lot numbers and there’s vaccine cards that are going to dictate the rest of your life and they’re just, for the hell of it, they’re going to give you another shot if you want it? This is unbelievable.

So, they announced to me when I saw them in the office, they go, ‘We already got our boosters.’  I said, ‘Boy, that’s pretty prompt.’ I didn’t say anything, you know, people have their own choice. And sure enough about two weeks later, ‘Oh, I’ve got Covid and my husband’s got Covid.’ And she got Covid, and she’s fully boosterised, so she would have fit that the boosters are not holding because it’s Delta and the vaccines have not been adjusted to cover Delta, which is the most mutated form of the variant.

But the CDC knew about vaccine failures even back on May 25th, where at that time, through community departments of public health, they didn’t have all the cases, but they reported 10,262 cases to the CDC as fully vaccinated Americans who had broken through. 10 per cent were known to be hospitalised and 2 per cent died. I’ll tell you, that’s not good. That’s May 25th. What did the CDC do in response to that? The CDC said, ‘We’re not tracking these failures any more.’ They went on to say, in their website, ‘If you’ve been vaccinated, don’t get any more testing.’ Hospitals followed and said, ‘You know what, if you’ve been vaccinated, we’re not going to test you before your heart cath or your . . . but if you’re unvaccinated, we’re going to test you.’ Some of you are shaking your heads, right?

Then the CDC went even further and said, ‘You know what, the cycle thresholds on the PCR test, if you’ve been vaccinated, we’re only going to count ones where cycle thresholds are low, less than 25, because, you know, we don’t want to get false positive from the vaccine. However, if you’ve been unvaccinated, we’ll take it, anything you want to give us.’ Yeah. So the CDC made some decisions on May 25th of what’s called biased asymmetric reporting. This fabricated the books. It cooked the books to make the vaccine failures look small and make the problem starting May 25th forward look like it was going to be a crisis of the unvaccinated. And we started to hear talking points like, ‘Oh my gosh, the hospitals are filling up and they’re all unvaccinated,’ and people would kind of say ‘unvaccinated’ with kind of a snarl. I’d see that, you know, and if people would hear the reports.

I took a drive from Dallas down to Austin, and I was actually on Alex Jones, anybody watch Alex Jones? [applause] I am not a hardcore right wing guy. My wife says, ‘Don’t go on with him. Don’t go on’, because, you know, Alex Jones, he’s like, ‘Get your guns, get your ammo. They’re coming for us.’ And so I went down there with fear and trepidation. I said, ‘Alex, you know, I’m just a doctor. I just, you know, I’m happy to go on.’ I said, ‘but I don’t have any guns or ammo and . . . and I’m just, you know, I don’t have a red cap or anything.’ And his producers say, ‘Alex, Alex, no stunts, no stunts for Dr McCullough, just . . .’ And so Alex was really good. If you’ve ever seen the video, he was just . . . and it turns out he’s a really smart guy.  He had . . . he has, like, 20 stacks of paper in front of him. He keeps that studio at like 58 degrees, I said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me?’ But apparently, he burns off all this energy as he gets wired up. And I said, ‘Alex, do you read all this stuff?’ He goes, ‘Yeah, I read all of it.’ I said, ‘You got to be kidding me.’ He’s a smart guy. And he, basically, he does what he calls stunts. I don’t know if you saw him when he ate a whole packet of ivermectin, you know, he does stunts. [laughter from audience] Alex does stunts to kind of, I guess that’s what they do in media. But for me, it was no stunts. We went over the data and I told him, I said, ‘Listen, this is all set up to be a crisis of the unvaccinated by intentional asymmetric reporting.’

And everybody bought off on this. But the CDC continues to tell us it’s not. The CDC on July 26 had again, you know, sporadically reported – this isn’t the universe of cases – they had 6,587 fatal or hospitalised cases. And look at this, 19 per cent of them died. These basically came in through hospitals who voluntarily reported to the CDC. A 19 per cent mortality rate in those hospitalised fully-vaccinated is a problem. And anybody who tries to tell you, ‘Oh if you get . . . at least a consolation prize of being vaccinated, is that you have a little easier ride with Covid’, so, wait a minute, this doesn’t look like it’s an easier ride, okay? The CDC, as of August 23rd, told us who’s dying and who’s dying and who’s being hospitalised is people over 65. So we’re back to the seniors. Covid-19 has always been about the seniors, so why in the world has the dialogue for the last nine months been on the children? This is a crisis of the seniors and our seniors have paid the price. Some of them, the ultimate price . . .


Part 4: Malfeasance and abusing Mother Nature

This the fourth part of an edited transcript of a recent lecture delivered by Dr Peter McCullough. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here and Part 3 here. This latest section of Dr McCullough’s tour de force moves on to vaccine damage, deaths and the tragic denial by governments of early treatment. 

I NEVER thought I’d say the words malfeasance and propaganda as a US citizen talking about our public servants.

These people serve us, including the President. Okay? They serve us. And the CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the NIH (National Institutes of Health) serve us.

They’re supposed to make sure our drugs are safe, they’re supposed to analyse the data and help us. The doctor and the patient sit above the CDC, NIH and FDA, and they sit in this circle of what’s called a fiduciary relationship, what we call shared medical decision-making.

And in no way, shape or form should that medical circle ever be broken. And malfeasance and propaganda are the tools to break that circle that should not be broken.

These two studies show 23 per cent of Americans hospitalised with Covid-19 have been vaccinated. Full stop. This is June. We’re not even fully into Delta, Okay? All these hospitals, all these vitriolic intensive care unit staff and other people telling you that it’s all unvaccinated.

There’s a billboard on the way up from Dallas down to Austin saying over 90 per cent of people are unvaccinated. It’s not supported by the peer-reviewed published data.

So, by pushing mass vaccination, governments have created evolutionary pressures on the virus. The vaccine is not sufficiently safe in everyone and it doesn’t work well enough in everyone. And to make matters worse, it’s making it worse for everybody, because we’re fooling with Mother Nature.

Once we got to October of 2020, the diversity of the viral lineages started to go down in every country once we started vaccination. We always had half a dozen to a dozen different strains. We always had alpha, beta, gamma Delta. They had different names back then, but we always had them. Okay?

So it’s not like the vaccines cause mutation, but the vaccines produce what’s called a nonlethal evolutionary pressure. And that nonlethal evolutionary pressure is shown by this paper of Venkatakrishnan, showing that, here’s the spike protein and the target is what’s in green, light green there.

The antibody is the big dark blob. The antibody is way bigger than the spike protein. The spike protein is only 1,200 amino acids, the antibodies are huge. And you can see there you got to have that target to hit.

As there is antigenic change – and with Delta originally, it was seven mutations, then it was Delta Plus, now the British think there’s about 20 more different mutations – and Delta, it’s funny because the mutations are peppering around the gain of function research that was done into furin cleavage joint.

So it’s almost like Mother Nature knows it’s wrong and says, ‘Listen, I’m going to take the starch out of this thing by mutating.’ It’s really interesting, but you can see now the antibodies no longer hit Delta. That’s the reason why. The vaccines actually probably did work with Alpha and Beta, but they no longer work with Delta.

The Israeli ministry thinks the vaccine effectiveness of Pfizer is about 39 per cent. If a vaccine cannot last a year and have at least 50 per cent protection, it’s not viable as a vaccine. So Delta is making waves.

Look at these diversity curves. We went from the British variant, that’s what I had back in October, we have actually started to have the pressure and look how Delta has gone from a few per cent back in May. Delta now is 99 per cent of what we’ve had.

We’ve never had a super-dominant, hyper-dominant strain, period. This is a product of vaccination. More than 25 per cent of people vaccinated, you start messing around with Mother Nature. This is really a problem.

So, in the messaging before I was completely banned from Twitter, which is actually a sign of high-quality scientific citation. (laughter and applause from audience) In fact, I was never on social media until my daughter convinced me to go on it. And that was like about a year ago, and it was probably the worst mistake I ever made.

But I can tell you there’s no podcaster I can’t bring down off YouTube. I told of most of them, ‘You’re going to go on with me, be prepared to win every censorship award you can win. Because all we’re going to do is cite the data and you’re gone. We just pinpoint and they just go down.’

I just brought down Tommy Kerrigan, a great young podcaster, he’s gone. And I told him, ‘That’s really a badge of courage.’

But you don’t fool with Mother Nature. When I had been tweeting before I was off, I said, ‘Listen, I’m not against the vaccines, but let’s limit it maybe to nursing home workers, where there were outbreaks.’

There were never any school outbreaks, never, Okay? There was never any credible student-to-teacher transmission – didn’t happen. The Chinese and a paper from New York showed 85 per cent of the transmission occurs in the home, Okay?

So this idea that people were out here, that we were all transmitting it to each other just wasn’t tractable. It happened in the home.

And so what we needed from the very beginning was early treatment for Covid-19, and I testified in the US Senate. I told America, ‘Stopping the spread of the virus is great to the best we can, but we can’t just focus on this. The masks are not treatment, Okay? We need to have an early home treatment programme. We can do it by telemedicine, reduce hospitalisations and deaths.’

There’s only two bad outcomes with this illness: Hospitalisation and death. I think if everybody knew they were going to get a cold and they could ride it out at home, but you weren’t going to be destroyed by this in the hospital, I think you’d say, ‘Okay, I’ll get through it.’ Okay?

Early in March of 2020, I said there are two bad outcomes for this – hospitalisation and death, and I was on these task force calls and I waited.

And I think it was about April I asked some people, ‘Are we going to do start doing something? Are we going to open up a Covid clinic and start treating this problem?’ And the doctors were terrified.

One doctor said, ‘You’re kidding. We’re closing down our clinics. We just got an executive order to do telemedicine. We’re not going to contaminate our clinics. We’re not going to contaminate yours.’

And then, after another couple of weeks, I said, ‘If we don’t start treating this, our hospitals are going to fill up.’ And when I watched the fear, the sheer, unadulterated, unbridled, terrifying fear in the eyes and the voices of doctors and health care providers and administrators, I knew what was going to go on.

I said, ‘They’re not going to treat a single person. They are terrified for the first time, of getting it themselves.’

And you know what terrified us was the Italians. The Italians ran out of masks and ran out of Personal Protective Equipment in a few places, and they posted a list of dead Italian doctors and they hit a thousand. They put it on the internet.

There was a young male nurse in New York who had asthma, you probably remember him. He died. They had him on CNN. And I think that scared the bejesus out of people. And then I realised: Listen, nobody’s going to treat this illness.

And we had the President, White House Task Force, Senate, House, NIH, FDA and CDC. Not a single leader at any time said, ‘Death and hospitalisation are the two bad outcomes. Let’s get a team of doctors in here who know how to treat this. And let’s stop this from happening.’ No one framed the problem. And if you don’t frame a problem, you can never solve it. Never solve it. (applause)

And I became incredibly agitated, and I was really, really hard on Trump. I know some of you guys are Trump supporters. He’s the only one that had enough power and authority to make that statement and make it happen. And if he didn’t do it, no one was going to do it and he let us down.

And to make matters worse, he got Covid himself. And he actually got first-class treatment. The one doctor I liked was that kind of cocky doctor that Trump had. Remember that guy? He was a DO, got out there, handsome guy. He goes, ‘We’re going to give him some monoclonal antibodies. We’re going to sequence the other drugs, and we’re just going to get through it just fine.’

I said, ‘That’s the type of doctor America needs.’ That’s the type of doctor that every single senior citizen needed – a confident doctor who’s going to get the drugs rolling fast and get our seniors through the illness.

So President Trump got first-class treatment that was available and should be available and should have been delivered to every single American. And what happened? He didn’t say a word. He goes, ‘Listen, it saved my skin,’ and then everybody else got … went on to get slaughtered by the virus. It was awful. Early home treatment is our only chance to reduce these outcomes.

A hospitalisation is a safety net for survival, but contemporary mortality in the Covid network – and I’m part of that network out of the Brigham Hospital – was still 38 per cent of people getting in the ICU.

Vaccination or herd immunity is terrific, but you know natural immunity is I think ultimately what we’re after. I testified in the Texas Senate in March of 2021 and I told Texans, ‘Listen, we’re at herd immunity.’ I used the CDC equation. I said, ‘That doesn’t mean it’s over with. Herd immunity means it’s just not going to spread very far in a congregate setting, because there are enough people to be a buffer.’

And one of the public health officials in Texas backed me up a few weeks later, and they opened up the baseball season, Rangers baseball game and the Department of Health were, like, ‘I’m going to fry McCullough on this.’

And you know what? There weren’t any outbreaks. They looked for them. There weren’t because we had herd immunity.

We actually do have herd immunity,  but it doesn’t mean you’re not going to have some more cases. But it’s not going to be devastating. So, vaccinated or not, the acute Covid-19 high-risk patients demand early treatment.

I told you the vaccines don’t work and I refuse to discriminate against a vaccinated or unvaccinated person. It’s wrong, it’s wrong. (applause) And we cannot do that. We cannot do that. As horrible as it is to be discriminated against, whether you’ve chosen or not chosen the vaccine, don’t turn around and do it to somebody else.

Don’t do it. Because that’s the slippery slope, that’s the slippery slope of division and derision. In meanness and unkindness, an injury that’s going to happen.

And you can see it right now. You can see it right now, right? Who’s marked? Who isn’t marked? Who did this? Who did that? You can see the snarl.

I heard some awful narrative the other day that there was a person in the hospital, a senior, and she was struggling with Covid-19 and they, of course, asked her, ‘Did you take the vaccine?’ And she goes, ‘I didn’t take the vaccine.’

And the family member says, Well, how can I get, you know, some of these things that I want my loved one to have?’ And the nurse said, ‘Well, it’d be a lot easier if she was vaccinated. You’d probably get what you want.’ Yeah, so there’s these stories are already rolling. And, you know what, there’s perverse discrimination going on.

So I’ll give you an example, a patient of mine got really sick with Covid-19. This Delta has been tough to treat. Anybody who’s tried to treat it, believe me, I underestimated it – it’s tough to treat, he got really sick, we got to the point where he needed a monoclonal antibody infusion.

I sent him to the place in Dallas, which I know has it, and I know we can get it. He shows up there. And then the first thing the doctor leans over him and says, ‘Have you been vaccinated or not?’

And I coached the patient. He goes, ‘I decline to answer.’ And the ER doctor said, ‘What do you mean?’ He goes, ‘I decline to answer.’ And then he said, ‘Okay, so what do you want?’ He said, ‘I came here for an antibody infusion.’

The ER doctor said fine. He got the antibody infusion. So, on the way out the door he goes, ‘Hey, doc, what if I would have answered that question one way or the other? What would you have said?’

He goes, ‘Oh, if you would have told me you are vaccinated, I would have given you remdesivir.’ Yeah! Yeah – so the discrimination goes both ways in this idiotic treatment protocol that we have for Covid-19. You can’t make this stuff up.

So I’ve always said that early therapy has got the greatest chance of reducing hospitalisation and death. And then when you do these other things, it makes sense that low-risk things like lockdowns and wearing masks, if you have two people wearing masks and neither one has the virus, the mask can’t obviously … can’t possibly do anything right.

So what I’ve said from the very beginning, I’ve been on the Laura Ingram TV show a bunch of times and of course, they always want to talk about masking. And I think it’s just distracting from the really important stuff that we’re talking about tonight.


Part 5: We’ll beat this via natural immunity

This the fifth and final part of an edited transcript of a recent lecture delivered by Dr Peter McCullough. You can read Part 1 here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here and Part 4 here. In this section, Dr McCullough focuses on natural immunity, and why we have to fight for our medical freedom.  

WHO here has had Covid-19? That is awesome. That is awesome. (cheers and applause) Let me just say one thing: natural immunity is the way out of this.

Listen, if we don’t recognise natural immunity, when is this going to end? This is really important. My natural immunity card, you know, your Senate Majority Leader, Mike Shirkey, met up with me in Berrien Springs and he gave me a little yellow band, where it says ‘naturally immunised’.

Guys, order them. Let’s have a million yellow bands and let’s wear them. He’s a good guy, let’s do it, because the bottom line is we have to demonstrate natural immunity. That’s our only way out of this. It’s the only way out of it.

You know, there are legal letter to the CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) demanding natural immunity to be recognised. Demand it. Okay, we have to demand it. And be relentless on this.

Listen, natural immunity, you can’t give it, you can’t receive it. There’s no credible evidence that you can get Covid-19 over and over again.

Blaylock reviews this, and lots of cohorts have natural immunity strongly protective to date that we honestly shouldn’t have to worry about this.

The bottom line is that when we vaccinate people, we actually cause harm. Now another large paper in the British Medical Journal shows that if we vaccinate people who are naturally immune who don’t need it, all we do is cause harm. Harm – three to four times as many safety events, including hospitalisation.

Probably the people who are really being damaged on those red boxes I showed you are people who don’t need the vaccine. Okay? So that’s the reason why, as a Covid-recovered person, that’s the reason why I worry most about the vaccine. I worry about the fact that I’ve already had my run in with the spike protein.

A recent paper presented by Bruce Patterson in the Rome summit showed how in people who had natural Covid 19, he found 15 months later spike protein in the monocytes.

There must be a spike protein party in the body, and you must spend months scavenging the stuff out of here. The last thing I want in me is another run of the spike protein. I don’t need it. It’s going to cause harm.

While we’re here, because freedom is at risk; we’re at the beginning of, I think, a dark time, it’s very dark for me personally right now, it’s just things are really going bad in the last 18 months and I can’t tell you, my wife every day asked me, ‘What’s going to be the next shoe to drop?’ You know, we are really at the end of this needle.

Now’s the time to talk about it and to get activated in talking to as many people, and you have to try to clear their eyes – have to. Conversation by conversation.

Medical freedom is related to social freedom, is related to economic freedom. I’ll give credit to this to Eric Clapton, he’s my new friend. He came over to my house because my wife’s a great cook.

My wife’s from the Middle East. He came over and she made some great Arabic food and  he said he was injured by the vax. He goes, ‘I’m 76. I was kind of worried. I wanted to tour.’

He hadn’t toured in two years. That’s how he makes his money. And he said, ‘Listen, there’s a circle of medical freedom, and if this is broken, then it’s going to break social freedom and then economic freedom.’

So right now, we’ve got to shore up that medical circle, no matter what. I mean medical freedom to get the treatment that people need; medical freedom to demand good care in the hospital and get it and medical freedom to decide what goes in your body. Okay? (applause)

It’s very, very important. No one, no one under any circumstances at all – approved, unapproved, I don’t care – no one can receive any pressure, coercion or threat of reprisal for something injected into your body that you can’t take out, period. That is the line.

And I got so many people in the military reaching out to me right now, and they’re just absolutely in agony, I said, ‘Hold the line.’ I said, ‘If our military can’t hold the line, who can?’

People are going nuts. If you think it’s bad now, there are rallies in England begging for ivermectin and for hydroxychloroquine.

This just came up yesterday. Woman sues Aventis Health to force ivermectin treatment of husband. Since when do we actually have to sue hospitals to use simple, affordable, generic medicines that may help patients, of which we have some randomised trials to support?

Do you know there have been court orders and there have been hospitals that are denying court orders. Since when? Historians will record.

You know, the last patient I had with a big heart attack in the ICU and the family was there, we were negotiating drugs all day long. ‘Maybe we’ll use a little fentanyl, maybe we’ll use this? We’re going to use this drug or that drug.’

I mean, we negotiate all the time. Suddenly in Covid, there’s no negotiation. None. ‘No, sorry. We’re not going to do it.’ Therapeutic nihilism. It’s in the minds of doctors, hospital administrators, nurses and others to actually cause harm.

And this is, that thought pattern, is something you need to smell out, recognise, call and we got to extinguish. Should we take a genetic vaccine? And people ask me all the time, ‘Doctor, which ones are best? Can I just, can I just get it? Can I just get through?’

I said, ‘How much is this going to buy you? Three months of work? Six? It doesn’t end, it’s not like one shot. If they’re going to guarantee you ten years of employment, maybe you’d take the risk, but there’s no guarantees here. You’re not guaranteed anything for taking the vaccine, right?

Public outrage over these ineffective, unsafe forced vaccinations, we’re at a point, the vaccines don’t work well enough in everyone and they’re not safe in everyone.

I’ve always said, ‘Listen, 168 million took the vaccines, for the vast majority of people, including my family members, nothing happened – terrific. We hope there’s some benefit.

It is my clinical observation – just my observation, I can’t prove it – but those who took the vaccine, I think they are a little easier to treat. But that’s a consolation prize. That’s not a reason to get a vaccine.

So there’s been censorship in scientific discourse. What we’re having right now is a public discourse of a topic of public importance. We are, by law, allowed to do this. There’s nothing unlawful about what we’re doing. And Senator Johnson, who’s one of our heroes, has been pounding mainstream media. It is lawful.

Someone can take a manuscript demonstrating vaccine failure and post it on Twitter. It’s lawful to do that. It is unlawful, in my view, and wrong in my view, to have that censored as a point of information for people to consider.

We’re crushing the lifeblood of medical science and it’s all in the open. December 10, Trusted News Initiative – BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Twitter, all social media said, ‘We are going to do everything to promote the vaccine, and we’re going to do everything to crush any vaccine hesitancy, including crushing early treatment and crushing anything on vaccine safety.’

That’s the reason why we haven’t heard anything of vaccine safety. It’s in the open. Everything is wide open. There’s no trickery here.

Rick Bright, the guy who blocked hydroxychloroquine inside the White House and starved America of hydroxychloroquine, he has joined the Rockefeller Foundation. Okay?

Stephen Hahn, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) commissioner who put all these negative blankets on hydroxychloroquine and the other drugs, he has joined the venture capital firm, who basically is the funder of Moderna.

The National Institutes of Health, which Francis Collins, former University of Michigan and Tony Fauci worked for, they co-own the patent for the Moderna vaccine. It’s in the wide open.

Scott Gottlieb, former chairman of the FDA, kind of my media foe when I go on TV, is on the board of Pfizer. This is in the open, you guys.

The conflict of interest is not the driver of this, but it is a happy by-product for those who are profiting. A blockbuster drug is considered a billion dollars a year and the pharmaceutical reps, they have to fight for these sales and they talk to doctors, what have you.

You know, Pfizer in less than a year with the vaccine, with no reps, with no sales force, with no costs, is at £33billion for the vaccine, prepaid. You can’t beat this.

The conflict of interest is absolutely unavoidable and it’s crushing the lifeblood of medicine, and it’s everywhere. Look, there’s so much money in this. Look at these statements. ‘Dear Dr McCullough, Federation of State Medical Boards has recently issued a statement that physician disciplinary actions, including suspension or revoking of licence.’

I’m being filmed right now. This is my licence revocation presentation, you can see that I’ve been pinpoint with respect to the data. ‘We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority,’ and I have it and I won’t deny it, ‘to denigrate vaccination’.

I’m not denigrating it, I gave you the data. I told you my family members took it. I took a vaccine two days ago. I’m not denigrating the vaccine. But, ‘at a time when the vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness’ – which is, they don’t – ‘against severe illness, hospitalisation and death’. There’s no data for that.

Who’s going to decide information or misinformation?’ I don’t think there’s any fairness in the courts. I tell you, I’m an expert in a lot of it … the medical literature is corrupt. The courts are corrupt. All the major aspects of government are corrupt.

I made a presentation for the Heritage Foundation in Washington, an open meeting. Heritage Foundation gives a lot of advice to the House and Senate, NIH (National Institutes of Health) and others, and I gave basically a lot of this. And you could hear a pin drop afterwards.

And finally, one of the former AMA (American Medical Association) presidents came out and said, ‘Dr McCullough, we have the largest biological product catastrophe in human history going on right now.

‘We’ve had two administrations buy into it, the House and the Senate, the major media, the entire medical establishment, and no one knows how to stop it.’

To me, that was a stunning admission from leaders in Washington. Some people know. People know. It’s not just us. In the last two weeks, I’ve been called privately by the Federal Reserve. I’ve been called privately by two people, pretty high up in the Vatican.

I’ve been called and I’ve had conferences with some official leaders of other countries, like the leader of the other country, and they want to talk to me.

Okay, I’m telling you, we are not the only ones who realise that we’re in the middle of a major biological catastrophe. And these boards, though, are going to hunt us. And the question is, how far are they going to go and how much are we going to lose? I can tell you personally, I’m willing to lose it all. (applause)

And I told it, I think I was on Alex Jones, I was on Alex Jones, I was on Tucker Carlson and they go, ‘Dr McCullough, aren’t you afraid someone’s going to come after you?’ I said, ‘Bring it on, bring it on.’ (cheers and applause) And I did. And I did.

And there are other heroes, there are other people who do understand what’s going on. We’re not alone. These people in the media are good people. They are walking a line. You don’t understand, they’re walking a line.

They, to some degree, they do feel their lives are threatened. I’m not playing around. They’re very visible. These people are on our team. They do partially or fully understand what’s going on. Our goal is to stay alive in the media. That’s the goal.

People say, ‘Dr McCullough, what are you trying to do?’ I said, ‘Listen, I haven’t spent a dime doing this. In fact, I’ve lost a tremendous amount of money so far. I’m doing this because I don’t know anything else I can do.

I can’t save every person who calls me. But if I can actually help you and help others and help everybody who comes into my circle, we can get some awareness and awakening. We are going into a really bad time right now. We have very little time left to get active, I mean, really active.

There are things going on that you can’t make up. ‘Baylor (a Texas health system) gets a restraining order against Covid-19 vaccine sceptic doc’ – ie, me. September 16. There was no hearing. There’s no order that I had to sign.

There’s a case – but we’re not there yet, there still has to be discovery, depositions, there has to be a hearing. I’m telling you, this didn’t happen. This didn’t happen, but this was sent out and all the major media, the medical media what have you. And do you know why it was sent out? Somebody paid money or influence or power to Medscape to do this in order to signal to the media and let them think that I’m in trouble.

So the media doesn’t have me do this. That’s what this was about. This is about the lawsuit that does exist. In fact, I filed a motion, it’s called a slap lawsuit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. They are trying to silence me just like other dark times in history where there were people trying to shout out that something was going wrong.

If we don’t act now, our future is this. I really believe this. Take a look at Australia. They have hardly any Covid. On some days, they’ll have one Covid death and 300 vaccine deaths.

They’ve already rounded up a large number of 12 year-old and 13 year-old boys and girls into an auditorium. They vaccinated them, they killed two on the spot. Okay, I’m telling you this is going on.

I’ve been to Melbourne, I’ve been to Sydney, they’re great places – they’re not great places right now. They’re shooting rubber bullets at each other.

Now is the time that we have to get activated. This is unbelievable. Melbourne’s like San Diego. It’s a beautiful place. There’s absolutely no reason why this should be happening. If they would stop now, just stop everything. Stop the vaccine, stop the lockdowns, stop everything and just treat the one or two Covid patients they have, we’d all be back to normal, but they’re not.

There are powerful forces in place that want this to happen. Very powerful forces. The challenge is to break it. And the only way to break these powerful forces is to just say no, you’ve got to break it. That’s how we break. It’s very, very important. (applause)

So people have asked me, ‘Dr McCullough, what’s behind this?’ When I got to Tucker Carlson, at one point in time, he just started, he started raising his hands, he goes, ‘Who’s behind this, who’s behind this?’ I said, ‘Tucker, I’m just a doctor. I’m just trying to explain to you, I’m just a doctor. I’m just reporting the news here.’

But I referred him to Peter Breggin or Nicholas Wade or Whitney Webb. There are a bunch of investigative reporters that will get behind it. This book is out. It’s 15 dollars, probably the best thing you could buy. It has a thousand references. It’s meticulous.

It’s largely going to tell you who’s profiting for this and the web of stakeholders here and what’s driving it. I don’t think it’s the root cause. But I think it’s who’s behind a lot of what’s going on. I can tell you,everything we’re living through right now was planned. The book is called Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey.

So to conclude, the Covid-19 pandemic is obviously a global disaster. Its pathophysiology is complex, it’s not amenable to a single drug. Don’t bake it on a single drug. The pre-hospital phase, the time of therapeutic opportunity, we’ve got a lot more treatment we need to give.

Hospitalisation and late treatment is inadequate. Early therapy, sequenced multi-drug approach is the way to go. Use these monoclonal antibodies until they take them away, and then you can even use hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin until they take it away and then still use the other drugs and you’ll still win.

Covid-19 genetic vaccines: Unfavourable safety profile, not sufficiently effective, cannot be generally supportive. Do I think they’re absolutely horrible? No. Maybe somebody could benefit. I’m not completely against it.

The Novavax is a protein vaccine that could be good in the future. There’s 27 different vaccines. It’s just that these genetic vaccines, just like the first of anything, are not working out.

Censorship and reprisal are working to crush the freedom of speech and scientific discourse and medical progress. And I am out of gas. Thank you.

October 20, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment