“What we've learned is an unbelievable story of poor safety. In fact, I think it's basically a biological catastrophe on our hands,” says Dr. Peter McCullough, an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and leading expert on COVID-19 treatment.
In this episode, we sit down with Dr. McCullough and author John Leake, co-authors of “The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.”
Why is much of the world’s public health apparatus fixated on mass vaccination, even now?
Is monkeypox really a threat? Or is something else going on?
Jan Jekielek: John Leake, and Dr. Peter McCullough, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Peter McCullough: Thanks for having us.
John Leake: Pleasure to be here.
Mr. Jekielek: I've been digging into “THE COURAGE TO FACE COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.” John, how did you get interested in this topic? And you got interested rather early on, right?
Mr. Leake: Pretty much straight away. It was March of 2020, I was home visiting my family for Christmas. I started reading the first reports, mostly coming out of Milan. I lived in Italy for a while and was somewhat familiar with the situation over there in general. And there were a number of things about the reporting that just struck me as implausible. I began to think there's a propaganda campaign going on here, the question is why, what is the agenda? What are we being asked to believe?
That was the first moment in which I began to think this could be something like a true crime story. I've written a couple of true crime books, but pretty quickly I realized in order to interpret this properly, I need a real top medical authority. And the question was finding a top medical authority who's also questioning the orthodoxy that we were being told. And I thought this is probably going to be a pretty tall order, but as luck would have it, the top authority who was also a leader of questioning the authority and actually publishing about it quickly. He lived two miles from my house in Dallas, so it was a very happy coincidence.
Mr. Jekielek: Oh, so really this was you just looked and you saw Dr. Peter McCullough and oh, it happens to be he's down the road.
Mr. Leake: Literally. he'd already done his Senate testimony on November the 19th, 2020. And I saw that on C-SPAN and I thought this guy's a Dallas guy. I mean, the guy who's testifying before the U.S. Senate about questioning the orthodoxy, actually treating the illness in the outpatient setting. He lives two miles from my family home.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay, and just very briefly, Peter, tell me about that first meeting, because you guys really dig into this whole process right from the beginning. What happened with COVID. How the system, the country, the government dealt with it, and then also how some of the upstarts like yourselves dealt with it.
Dr. McCullough: Well, it was my first approach from an author that I found out later on, John is a bestselling author and award-winning author and a true crime expert. He invited me to an interview. We went to a Dallas studio and he simply sat behind the camera, asked me questions and I gave him my responses. And I think what we both quickly came to recognize and appreciate is that there was a story here and there was a powerful story. Part of it's about me and the roles that I play, how I develop my thinking and my response. And then part of it was about a very, very big global development happening.
Mr. Jekielek: Peter, I want to ask you about something a bit off to the side right now, because as much as we've been looking at COVID, obsessed with COVID for over two years now, right? It's almost like now where we're talking about a completely different disease, monkeypox right? Oh, it's not an airborne virus at least the science books tell me and I've just heard a lot of different stuff about it. And there seems to be this increase in cases, there seems to be a media narrative emerging around this. I just wanted to see how you are viewing this whole thing, this whole monkeypox question?
Dr. McCullough: The disease may be fear of the next contagion and what we outline in our book. There was actually an entire response to pandemics and contagious illnesses being developed over the last decade. In fact, there was planning for this, informational planning and when the news broke about monkeypox an illness of which there are cases every single year. In fact, there hasn't been a year where we've been devoid of cases.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of cases. And now we've amassed thousands of cases since it was first discovered, but why is it in the news cycle? Why are pictures, some pictures that are on the internet right now, Jan, are black and white. They look like they're decades old. A brief summary, monkeypox is in the Orthopoxvirus family. It was initially described in monkeys in the Congo Basin [in] 1958. First human case, a jump from primates to humans, 1970. U.S. outbreak in 2003, when pet prairie dogs were mixed with giant pouch rats from the Congo Basin and they actually spread it to one another. Some people got it in the United States. That's 2003, no deaths.
It manifests as a pustular rash. It's in the same family as smallpox and camelpox and cowpox, but monkeypox is not very communicable. It can spread from saliva and actually the liquid in the pustules. And what we had come to learn is that over the past five years, there was planning. For example, there was a development of a vaccine and the vaccine is held by a company called JYNNEOS. It's a live attenuated vaccine.
Monkeypox is of interest because whatever is done for smallpox works for monkeypox. And the thought is, if there was bioterrorism related to smallpox, which is still held in some labs worldwide, if it ever got into nefarious hands, that we would need something to manage smallpox bioterrorism. Enter monkeypox, there are parallels. So there's a JYNNEOS live attenuated vaccine, there is a drug called Tecovirimat or TPOXX, that's a VP37, it's a cell surface inhibitor, works well.
There is a well developed thought process about what we would do with monkeypox. It was a paper by Beer, another one by Simpson in 2019, summarizing decades of literature on monkeypox and what we would do if monkeypox was part of a bioterrorism attack. And then in March of 2021, there was a simulation tabletop exercise by the nuclear threat initiative, a think tank in Washington, and a Munich Biosecurity Group, where they had scenario planned a Monkeypox Bioterrorism Event, that in this case, the monkeypox would be completely resistant to the JYNNEOS vaccine.
It would lead to over 200 million deaths. Again, just a theoretical tabletop planning exercise, but the release date for the bioterrorism attack was going to be May 15th, of 2022, just seven days before the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos and the World Health Organization meeting in Switzerland regarding a global treaty for pandemic management. The timing of this was so suspicious that whoever the stakeholders are involved could have had the idea of just using the reported cases of monkeypox which occurs worldwide to juice this system with fear.
In response to this, the U.S. government immediately said that they had pre-purchase, they had actually purchased 13 million doses of the JYNNEOS vaccine in preparation for a monkeypox major outbreak in the United States. We had in April 22nd, of 2022, a report from the CDC of a case in Dallas, there was a man who flew from Africa to Dallas. He first went to Atlanta. He saw people there, he came to Dallas, he had lots of exposure, developed the classic monkeypox. Ultimately he was hospitalized in Dallas, I think largely for contagion control.
They treated him with Tecovirimat or TPOXX VEAC. He did fine, but the report comes out in the CDC, MMWR describing this case in all of this case context. He didn't spread it to a single person, so it's not very transmissible, but the important point is on the author line there, there are over three dozen authors and their term, The CDC Monkeypox Response Team. We have had planning, a lot of planning for monkeypox, and this almost seems like it's event 201, now for the next pandemic illness, the next business opportunity, if you will, for CEPI.
Mr. Jekielek: That's fascinating. And of course, you've been doing a lot of work mapping out the bio-pharmaceutical complex as you describe it. John, of course, I'm speaking to here. That's fascinating. The only thing that I have trouble with is this, this isn't a terribly communicable disease, right? It's only done essentially by physical contact, as I understand it, unless there's some sort of crazy mutation that puts it into the era that would make it highly communicable, right? And how this plays out, how is this going to be convincing to the population assuming there's injection of scare here.
Mr. Leake: I think the guys who made the vaccine are going to make out really well. And I think what this bio-pharmaceutical complex is discovered is, there are all of these pathogens out there that could become an emergent disease pandemic. If you present it, if you take a few isolated cases and you say, "Oh dear, this is going to be this terrifying thing that goes nuclear." Then it triggers all of this pandemic response, including the generation of huge amounts of money.
And if you're positioned well within the complex, you know in advance you're going to be the recipient. Now the one really salient point in all of this is what these guys really like are vaccines. I mean, public health is actually a very complex thing; it's sanitation, it's the ecology of the country. It's the overall health condition of the population, the age of the population. But if you're hanging out with guys in the bio-pharmaceutical complex, you wouldn't know that there are these variables, it's just vaccinate and that's it.
Mr. Jekielek: Why is that? There seems to be this inordinate focus on vaccines as a solution, even to something like a coronavirus where there's from, what I've learned subsequently, there's lots of reasons why it doesn't make sense to use vaccines against a coronavirus.
Mr. Leake: I think it's a longstanding glory thing going back to Louis Pasteur and Jonah Salk and immunology is the sexy part of all of this. In theory, you can actually prevent people from getting infected to begin with. And I think the public has been confused by this, because there are very effective vaccines. I mean, in the childhood schedule, the tetanus and diphtheria and polio, particularly the trivalent polio, was very effective, but they prevent infection and transmission.
When we get to these messenger RNA vaccines that were sold to the world as this miracle new technology, there's just this big belly flop. I mean, it doesn't prevent infection and transmission, that has not prevented or in any way discouraged this enormous endeavor to develop these things, even if there's not a whole lot of promise or probability that they'll really work.
I mean, that was the notable thing to me. When SARS COVID 2 arrived, the two things that you see happening simultaneously, one is just straight out of the gate. It's unassailable to any treatment modality— just nothing works. Anyone who's suggesting that repurposed drugs will work on this is lying or is fantasizing. The solution will be the vaccine. And you think, well, how do you know that they will be safe and effective? You seem to already know this.
What we discovered in our research from what we map out in our book is that this was being planned for well in advance. I would say the most monopolistic obsessive individual within the complex, who has the highest profile and the most avenues to speak with the media and to pontificate about vaccines is Bill Gates. And we should always remember that he started his career as a monopolist. He wanted every man, woman and child on earth to have a Windows operating system. And he seems to have shifted his monopolistic spirit from the software business to the vaccine business.
Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating observation, I guess, the other piece around the vaccines and Peter, we've talked about this in the past before, is this sort of the side effects, right? Every vaccine has them. We know that there has been an orthodoxy in public health, in the U.S. and Canada, where you downplay the realities of that, because maybe you're afraid that people won't get vaccinated if they know there's even a small chance, right? Now, but all of that has been put into the fore, so to speak with these COVID vaccines, right? And I guess, where are we at in terms of understanding at this point, Peter, the realities around some of these side effects and harms and so forth?
Dr. McCullough: In our book, we do fully elucidate CEPI, or the Center for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation. It was in 2017 formed by the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. It produced a business plan. The business plan said that the next pandemic will be a business opportunity. And that CEPI's response to the business opportunity will be development of vaccines, no mention of treatments whatsoever. This was absolutely telegraphed from the beginning 2010.
Gates says, "It's the decade of the vaccines." Later on Gates announces at meetings that the return on investment of vaccines is 20 to one anything else that he's done. It is clear, the system is juiced for a vaccine. Now bring in the messenger RNA and adenoviral DNA vaccine. That's Pfizer, Moderna messenger RNA, Adenoviral is Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, but there's 16 total vaccines. We have the killed virus vaccines, CoronaVac, Sinovac, We have Novavax and Covovax, which are antigen based vaccines, and many others coming.
There is actually a panoply of vaccines out there for this respiratory illness. So a shot in the arm protecting against the sinus infection, not much of a track record there, honestly, in terms of efficacy. The flu vaccine this year, the official efficacy vaccine efficacy number was 17 percent. Recently the 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine, it's efficacy was published in the major literature for preventing, believe me, we have advocated Pneumovax my entire career as an internist and cardiologist, I've been advocating this for our seniors.
The vaccine efficacy comes back for Pneumovax for protecting against this upper respiratory tract infection in pneumonia, nine percent . We're talking there isn't a single shot in the arm that does virtually anything for a respiratory illness. And so the COVID vaccine to come and with an implicit talking point, and the talking point is, they are safe and they are effective, and you will take them, period. No discussions after that, no official discussions on safety and efficacy, no guarantee for reevaluation, no monthly review of safety.
The safety was assumed, was assumed, and the Chinese published a paper. It was interesting they published a paper early on as they started to look at, particularly the messenger RNA vaccines. And they were looking at blood test results and people had taken the vaccines. And they said, "We anticipate problems when the vaccines are broadly used in a population that has background medical problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancers, heart disease, lung disease [and] blood diseases."
Remember in the vaccine programs, Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, large fractions were perfectly healthy people with no background conditions. And very importantly, no prior SARS-COVID 2 exposure. None. Now we enter in all of these new variables and the idea that the vaccines were pre-assumed to be safe and effective and were going to be broadly used on everyone. Even people not previously tested like pregnant women, women of childbirth potential can't guarantee contraception, COVID recovery patients, suspected COVID recovery patients.
And so what we've learned is an unbelievable story of poor safety. In fact, I think by is basically a biological catastrophe on our hands through court ordered documents that the FDA did not want to release to America for 55 years, court ordered documents of the Pfizer program that the FDA wanted to block two Americans in the court proceedings, lead attorneys, Aaron Siri, pressing for the release of the Pfizer Dosier. We learned that there was 1,223 deaths within 90 days of release of the Pfizer program worldwide.
The standard is typically 50 deaths for some widely used product, take it off the market. It's not safe, something's wrong, something is wrong. Maybe it's the use of multi-use vials, where multiple needles are now jabbing into it. Maybe it's becoming hyper sulfated, maybe there are other things that are going on. It's being corrupted in some way. We know the messenger RNA is very finicky, it can be unstable, there's lipid nanoparticles, super cooling.
There was a big deal about its stability and maybe a lack of stability was translating into something that was injurious to the population. So the deaths continued to skyrocket, there was no stopping of the program. The CDC faithfully was recording the deaths in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. And on the domestic side of VAERS, we now have hit 13,000 deaths that have occurred after the vaccine, where people report it. Obviously the person died, they can't report it. So it was the doctor, the coroner, the nurse paramedic, the nursing home worker, someone's reporting it to VAERS.
Most of the time, 86 percent of the time we know from prior studies, it's not the patient's family. It's a healthcare worker, that is astounding. We have never let a product run like this for this period of time, without revisiting safety, without reporting safety, without even questioning safety and death being the final outcome. Now, there is an array of internally consistent non-fatal outcomes that the FDA agrees to, including heart damage with Pfizer, Moderna, blood clots with Johnson & Johnson, but also seen in Pfizer, Moderna.
Immune system disorders, including multisystem inflammatory syndrome, and then blood disorders, a whole variety of them, including vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia. In total, we have 1,000 peer-reviewed papers now on vaccine injuries, fatal and nonfatal—200 on myocarditis. And the program is going strong with the stakeholders. Our program is led by our CDC and FDA. That's a huge mistake to have the FDA lead a clinical program. They should be the safety watchdog, but when they're told to execute, getting a needle in every arm, they're turning a blind eye to safety and Americans are suffering.
Mr. Jekielek: In the book. John, you talk about just some actual basic conceptual errors in terms of how even these vaccines were conceived in the first place. You can get into that a little bit?
Mr. Leake: Well, the public has been led to believe that the vaccines that were presented to us at the end of 2020 were in the same lineage as the vaccines that we all grew up with and have come to trust and to understand are safe and effective. What I think a lot of the public didn't understand is, this is a completely novel technology. There are guys in MIT that were theorizing about this in the late '70s, but it didn't really start coming on in terms of development until after 2005.
It's not a conventional vaccine in the sense that you take an attenuated virus or bacterium, or part of the toxin of a bacterium, you're in effect, inducing natural immunity by giving the body an inoculum that's a weakened form of the thing that you would encounter in the wild. These are genetic transfer technologies. You're actually injecting messenger RNA, that codes for the production of the spike protein. So this is Star Trek stuff.
And any time, anyone who studied the history of science will quickly ascertain that when something, a novel technology is developed in great haste and in this, they actually told us of the haste, it's operation warp speed. Hit the hyperdrive, we'll have this new thing ready to rock and roll on the entire Earth's population in a matter of a couple of months. This is just fantastically absurd. I mean, we would've needed years of let's use it on a certain high risk part of the population, maybe older people that don't have that many years left [and] see how they do.
Dr. McCullough can address safety procedures that have conventionally been developed, but all this was just thrown out the window with foresight. Again, going back to the godfather of the bio-pharmaceutical complex in April of 2020, he was saying in op-eds in “The Washington Post,” no drugs work against this. The only thing that will enable us to return to normal is a new vaccine. And we are feverishly at work. My foundation is playing a pivotal role in this and developing it. And when every man, woman and child in the world is vaccinated with these new vaccines, which are right now in development, then we will be able to return to normalcy. Just on the face of it, this is just crazy.
Dr. McCullough: We have a parallel comment that's important. It came from an influential doctor, Dr. Rubin, the editor of “New England Journal Medicine.” In the fall of 2021 pediatric meetings he says, "We will never know if these are safe in children. We're just going to have to widely deploy it and see what happens."
[Soundbite/Dr. Rubin]: We're never going to learn about how safe vaccine is, unless we start giving it. That's just the way it goes.
Dr. McCullough: Probably one of the most reckless statements I've ever heard a doctor say.
Mr. Jekielek: That sounds like we're doing the experiment in vivo from the beginning.
Dr. McCullough: It seems like this was going to be the case. There hasn't been any discussion of active review of anything dose patient who receives it. Any other modifications, never have we had a wide scale program where there hasn't been modifications. We were actually promised vaccines that would cover Omicron in March of 2022, nothing. Now, oh, that's been pushed off to the fall. Don't hear any updates on this. Doesn't seem to be any urgency.
Novavax came in with their antigen based vaccine and they had clinical trials data showing as good efficacy as Pfizer, Moderna in June of 2021. People were actually looking at Novavax, an antigen based vaccine. At least Novavax had tested 25 micrograms versus five micrograms; 800 person U.S. company. There was great enthusiasm from Novavax because it's not genetic, we don't have to worry about it getting into our cells. We simply would respond to the spike protein inoculum, no word, no word.
Then we heard, "Well, there's questions regarding Novavax manufacturing standards, it's using an insect-based, moth-based type of preparation to produce it. It's going to be labor intensive to produce it.” But in fact, to this day, here we are in 2022, no Novavax on the U.S. market. It's on the European market. It's in Australia and Americans don't seem to be clamoring for this. I don't hear any talk about it in the United States. Why wouldn't we welcome a non-genetic based vaccine?
Mr. Jekielek: Speaking about the use of these genetic vaccines in children, from what I understand, right? The FDA is looking to try to approve, or I think it's the five to 11 age cohort. And they're basically, it seems like they're circumventing their expert panel.
Dr. McCullough: Well, they have circumvented any need for clinical outcomes. They've been reliant on what's called antibody testing, just looking for neutralizing antibodies. Remember the virus has mutated multiple times. Even the assays for neutralizing antibodies, maybe using reagents that are based on prior genetic code, nobody really knows. Certainly I don't. The reliability of an antibody neutralizing assay to what it would matter to Omicron, which is basically like a mild head cold for by and large everyone who would even know.
But we don't have from the original clinical trials or original randomized trials, since that point forward. We have not had any convincing evidence that the vaccines work in stopping SARS-COVID 2 upper respiratory infection. And we've never had in any clinical trial, a reduction in hospitalization or in death. In fact, with the Pfizer program, which is the biggest one, there's slightly more deaths with Pfizer than placebo. So we've actually never had a randomized trial claim. And the FDA's never granted these claims that the vaccines reduced hospitalization and death, which is what Americans care about.
Mr. Jekielek: From my understanding at this point, the one thing that these vaccines, the genetic vaccines actually do effectively is reduce hospitalization and death, but not of course, disease infection and transmission.
Dr. McCullough: That's a false claim. And this may be a shock to the audience. I'm a cardiologist, I can tell you, when we have a new product in my field, let's say a product for heart failure. For a company to make the claim that a heart failure drug reduces hospitalization and death, which are the two outcomes in heart failure, no different than the two outcomes of interest in COVID-19, the clinical trial must have a primary endpoint that is the composite of hospitalization and death.
Patients must be randomized to the active drug or product and or placebo and it must show a reduction in hospitalization and death. None of the vaccines have had clinical trials done versus placebo with that composite endpoint—none of them. Even in the observed data in clinical trials, there hasn't been any trend towards reducing hospitalization and death. The FDA therefore has never granted a claim. Believe me, if the vaccine manufacturers showed reduction in hospitalization and death in randomized data versus placebo, they would've granted that claim.
That would've been the most powerful thing, but they never had it. What's happened over time is a false narrative that's developed from observational data. And what we've seen is the following. In observational data, there has been a series, a multitude of biased analyses by investigators and doctors, and those in the bio-pharmaceutical complex, who are invested in trying to promote the vaccines, claiming that the vaccines reduce the severity of illness and reduce hospitalization and death.
And how are they putting these biased analyses forward? Number one, the electronic medical records for almost all these systems have a default of unvaccinated. So when someone comes into the hospital, if no one really tries to ask the patient what their vaccine card [is] and validate things, they remain, even if they're vaccinated, they remain counted as unvaccinated.
Number two, differential testing. Our CDC has said for the longest time, if one is unvaccinated, get a COVID test, but if you're vaccinated, no, don't get a COVID test, if you come to the hospital for a variety of reasons. Number three, no adjudication of why they're in the hospital. So now we have people coming in with ankle sprains and all different types of things. People unvaccinated getting COVID testing, giving an opportunity to, in a sense, create a COVID case in the hospital.
Number four, we have a situation where there is a difference in who takes a vaccine versus not, those who take the vaccine are more worried. Someone who takes a vaccine, they're far more likely to get early treatment and early treatment is what reduces hospitalization and death, not vaccines. It's early treatment.
But if the bias studies may have no accounting of early treatment, which they never do, those who've gotten a vaccine, they get early treatment, i.e if you notice recently, Anderson Cooper and Bill Gates get COVID-19 together. Anderson takes three shots, Bill Gates takes four shots. They're talking, they've both taken Paxlovid. Kamala Harris gets COVID-19, she took Paxlovid.
I can tell you those who've taken the vaccine are much more likely to have gotten early treatment, which really is the driver for reducing hospitalization and death. And then lastly, the groups aren't randomized. There is a bevy of bias studies creating a false illusion that the vaccines reduce hospitalization and death, and you know it's false for the following reason.
Most of these studies don't have any time delineation, they could have had a vaccine a year and a half ago. Well, wait a minute. Everyone agrees, the vaccines run out of any protection after six months. That's a fatal flaw. Another fatal flaw is that there's disagreement among countries. So in the United States, while there was a false narrative saying that this is a crisis of the unvaccinated in the summer of 2021, Israel was publishing, the Israeli Health agencies were publishing the vast majority of Israelis in the hospital and dying were fully vaccinated.
And then the Europeans reported that. And then the UK, Scottish and the UK health security agencies dutifully reported that indeed the vast majority of people in the hospital were fully vaccinated. And they actually did keep track of who was fully vaccinated by the definitions. And now the province of Ontario pouring in data, those in the hospital are far more likely to the tune of 70, 80, 90 percent are fully vaccinated. It's been a completely false narrative that the vaccines prevent severe disease. That is a complete analysis and I'll stand behind it.
Mr. Leake: One of the things that we examine in our book is this glaring contradiction. And I spent a whole day interviewing the Yale professor Harvey Rich, who's been one of Dr. McCullough's most trusted and talented colleagues and all of this. And one of the things that I talked about with Harvey Rich was this unending relentlessly rigorous standard that was applied to any repurposed drugs, or supplements for treating the illness.
And it was this, in order to make any claims about the efficacy of these repurposed drugs, it has to be a huge randomized, double placebo controlled trial. And if you don't actually meet that standard, then you can't make any claims about efficacy. But then when we come to the vaccines, which are brand new, we don't have experience of using these on a large human population. Unlike for example, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which have been around for decades, they have very well known safety profiles.
Now we jump to the vaccines in which the standards that were being applied, or that were being proclaimed must be applied against early treatment. They're just thrown out the window. Suddenly the methodology and the rigor of ascertaining safety and efficacy, is just thrown out the window with the vaccines. There's so many biases in this, and there's also outright academic fraud, which was admitted—papers submitted to prestigious medical journals, subsequently retracted.
We suddenly see that public medical policy becomes this massive propaganda endeavor. I know from my conversations with Dr. McCullough, he's just been stunned by what has happened to the world of academic publishing. We document all of this and you see this unfolding in real time. And the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the way this pandemic has been presented to the public has been a presentation that comes out of propaganda offices and organs, and not from unbiased scientific inquiry.
Mr. Jekielek: Peter, you were very early on looking for ways to treat people. Chapter 34 is, where's the focus on sick people? And of course now, we have proprietary drugs like Paxlovid, for example, that are in use. You talked about certain high profile people using them to treat. What is the state of treatment right now? And frankly, where was the focus on sick people and where is it now?
Dr. McCullough: That was a source of frustration among so many doctors, is that at any given time, we had a small number of acutely sick people. And if we would've focused our resources on them, which could have been done across the entire country, we could have in my view, in a sense ended this, because when patients receive forms of treatment, the infectivity period comes down from. It was as long as two weeks can come down to just a few days, so there's much less spread to other people.
And by reducing the intensity and the duration of symptoms, that's what triggers people to go to the hospital. We can reduce hospitalization and death and the vast majority of deaths occur in the hospital. Mechanistically it made sense to treat the high risk patients. What we saw from the very beginning and still to this day is a suppression of early treatment. And I think my breakout and interview was with Tucker Carlson. I said, I think it's intentional.
I think early treatment is being suppressed in order to create more fear and suffering and hospitalization and death to actually worsen things in order to prepare the population for mass vaccination. I think this is actually intentional. We went through hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and clearly there were smear campaigns and FDA statements. For ivermectin, even the American Medical Association launched an official campaign to abolish the use of ivermectin—abolish the use.
There's a couple dozen countries out there where ivermectin is official, government guidelines use it, but then it didn't stop there. We have big advances in virucidal, nasal washes, povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide, huge advance, probably the biggest advance of the whole pandemic, because now it applies to all kinds of viral upper respiratory tract infections. And then we have physician email newsletter campaigns saying iodine solutions, doctors pushing this, patients will swallow it and die of iodine toxicity.
It's like what? Starts coming down like having a negative effect, even on these washes. Now bring in Paxlovid, the Pfizer drugs tested in a randomized trial, epic HR trial, several thousand people, safe and effective, reduces the risk of hospitalization and death. Now it's kind of a quirky trial, because it's only Pfizer employed doctors or formerly employed doctors who are on the author group, no independent authors. That's a bit worrisome. And the average age in the Paxlovid trial 45, typically don't treat 45 year olds. We're interested in 85 year olds, right?
But take it as it is, look safe and effective, kind of a complicated combination of Lopinavir and Retonavir, a novel protease inhibitor plus an older protease inhibitor that we use for HIV fine. But now, Paxlovid is being undermined. And in fact Paxlovid now, there was a paper already from the Boston VA about Paxlovid rebound. Vaccine proponent and developer Peter Hotez at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston gets COVID himself. A quadruple jab probably. Gets COVID himself, treats with Paxlovid. And then after the five day course actually has worsening in his symptomatology.
Now we hear about Paxlovid rebound and then the medical literature has been filled with news that Paxlovid failed in a prevention trial. Now Paxlovid is being undermined. Now Merck has a drug with Ridgeback Pharmaceuticals called Molnupiravir. Very early on, there are papers written, Molnupiravir will cause cancer mutations that it's oncogenic in theory. So that's out there. You don't hear anything about the Merck drug, that's had a market entry, negative downdraft there.
And the most frustrating example of suppression of early treatment in my view are the blockbuster drugs. The real gold of Operation Warp Speed is the monoclonal antibodies, safe and effective. Every single trial shows that they're safe and effective, starting with the Lilly drug and then Regeneron, and then with GlaxoSmithKlin, back to Lilly. We even have AstraZeneca, dual monoclonal antibodies that we can use in place of a vaccine.
We can actually give them as a depot and they provide for protection every six months. No word of these, no public service announcements. There's been a hide and go seek on where the monoclonal antibodies are at any given time. It still goes on today. Based on theoretical considerations of mutation of the spike protein, they're pulled off the market, oh, the spike protein mutated. They're not going to work now, pull them off the market. Well, the spike protein mutates, they don't pull off Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson, despite tons of evidence that the vaccines are losing efficacy. No, we keep pushing those full steam ahead, but let's remove any therapy that could potentially help our seniors.
The monoclonal antibodies are pulled. It gets so frustrating. Ron DeSantis basically goes nuts. He starts a campaign, where are these antibodies? Where's the supply chain we hear from the Biden administration, all kinds of different news about red states and blue states. And who's getting monoclonal antibodies. To this day, I can tell you as a practicing doctor, it is a hunt to try to find monoclonal antibodies when we need it in our high risk patients. I am telling you the suppression of early treatment is global. It's against all the products, whether they're repurposed generics, or whether they're high tech, new drugs I think to promote the vaccines.
Mr. Jekielek: That's fascinating. I was going to say John, that clearly, the bio-pharmaceutical complex you would say is involved in this. I mean, you might expect that they would be against the repurposed drugs, they're generic, they cost next to nothing. There's no profit motive, but ostensibly, with these monoclonal antibodies that seems like big money to me, right? I mean, maybe I don't know what big money is really, but Paxlovid or all of these, these are expensive.
Dr. McCullough: Let me give you another follow-on example. This just happened in my practice, scalping. Scalping. The monoclonal antibodies don't forget are pre-purchase by the U.S. government. They should be offered free of charge. I have a sick senior citizen just had recent surgery. I'm worried about her. She's got severe symptoms. I send her to a trusted place that I've sent patients to in the past to get the new Lily monoclonal antibody, Bebtelovimab. And she goes there and they say, "Well, it's going to be $1,200. Scalping."
We haven't seen any scalping with the vaccines, have we? Go into to a vaccine center, they say, "Listen, well, we'll have to charge you $1200 for this vaccine." Oh no, the vaccines are poured on free of charge. You can go to DFW airport and get a vaccine there if you want to. They're giving vaccines to people before they get on flights. They're giving... CVS and Walgreens have been running vaccine ads on their phone trees before they were even reported out in clinical trials.
It was a feta complete that it was going to be a vaccine only strategy, and even the emergency use authorized products were not going to receive any limelight, any public service announcements. They were never going to be assembled in any type of meaningful profiles and they were going to be undermined, and they still are undermined today, I think, to promote a vaccine agenda.
Mr. Leake: I think what's puzzling is that the existing therapeutics departments of these pharmaceutical companies, they too are undermined, which is puzzling to people. But I think we should recognize that these pharmaceutical companies are avid and willing participants in this bigger bio-pharmaceutical complex scheme. But that doesn't mean that every single department is being favored and pushed forward. What we're seeing that's constantly being pushed forward is this monolithic vaccine solution to all public health problems.
This is what these international foundations, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller foundation, the Welcome Trust, the big money guys have put all of their money on vaccines. And we document in the book another thing that will probably come as a surprise to a lot of readers is that the NIAID, Anthony Fauci outfit at the National Institutes of Health is actually not only a grant, a source of funding for these messenger RNA vaccines, the NIAID also co-owns the patents.
They're an economic benefit. That federal institute is also an economic beneficiary of the royalties. The other thing that we go into is there is a very long standing, personal and business partnership that's explicitly described as such between Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates. They actually had a meeting at Bill Gates' grand house near Seattle back in 2000. For 20 years, they've been working together. It's a complex of public private partnerships, and the pharmaceutical companies are just one part of this.
Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating.
Mr. Leake: But the one thing I'll add about the suppression of early treatment, I looked at this as a true crime guy. You put things on a timeline and what you notice when people are acting in bad faith, is they'll make pronouncements about something before they've had any time to evaluate it. That's always a red flag. DDA Raul, he's the most cited microbiologist in Europe. He's a medical doctor and a microbiologist. He directed his own research hospital in Marsai, France.
DDA Raul is really one of the towering geniuses of France. And he quickly began to gather data showing the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as showing promise against SARS-COVID-2. And what was notable was no sooner had professor Raul presented some observational data, presented his summation of some studies coming out of South Korea, out of China, just independent Chinese research teams were seeing some merit in hydroxychloroquine.
No sooner did professor Raul announce, "Hey, this seems to show real promise and we've done some observational stuff." As soon as he says it, it [was] shot down and you think, well, why were you poised ready to take this thing out and shoot it the second it was uttered? This is very, very suspicious. And we have a timeline of the way hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were treated by our public health officials. There's a categorical dismissal from the outset. Never any time granted to actually take a look at this.
Dr. McCullough: In favor of the vaccines-
Mr. Leake: In favor of the vaccine.
Dr. McCullough: You mentioned my Texas Senate testimony in March of 2021, where I said, "Where's the focus on treatment?" That's the clip that Tucker Carlsen put up there. And I was very passionate about that, because I just listened to a doctor talk about her father in his '90s who got monoclonal antibodies and was saved by them. I told the chairman of Health and Human Services in Texas, where are these monoclonal antibodies? Where are they? Where's the 1-800 number where we can access them? Where's the billboards to tell us where they are?
And do you know that out of this Senator Bob Hall wrote the legislation to at least when someone gets a COVID positive test result, where they get an information sheet, I wanted a 1-800 hotline for monoclonal antibiotics. I wanted to see a 1-800 hotline for research. How do people get into research? Because the answer was previously, oh, go to clinical trials.gov and have grandmother try to navigate a complicated website. No, we need a 1-800 number to say, "I have COVID, I want some help, I want to get into research."
That legislation was proposed. And within two weeks, the Texas Medical Association of Doctors proposed counter legislation to replace it, a new vaccine registry. The doctors did not want any 1-800 numbers for the patients. The doctors didn't. I am telling you the suppression of early treatment is totally in favor of the vaccines. I think because there is a psychological program in the minds of people that they are going to be saved by this vaccine. The propaganda has worked that they're going to be saved by the vaccines, but they recognize the vaccines are fallible, that they really don't work unless every single person takes them.
Man, woman and child, COVID recovered, not covered recovered, that's the reason why natural immunity is ignored. That's the reason why the idea is to go down as early as you possibly can. That's the reason why just keep vaccinating no matter what. Remember Anderson Cooper, Bill Gates, they get COVID together. Anderson three shots. Bill Gates four shots. Anderson ask Bill Gates for medical advice. That's interesting, Bill Gates, not being a doctor says, "Bill, hey, we have COVID, should we take some more shots? Are we done? We got COVID, are we done?"
Gates goes, he thinks about it, "Well, to be sure, we should keep taking shots every six months." You can tell it's a vaccine agenda forever. Countries have pre-purchased years of the same vaccine. Not even modified, not even made better, not even made safer. They have advanced it forward. And there is at the same time, an oblivion to safety and it's global. It's global. I have had patient after patient, after patient have a well recognized vaccine problem, a blood clot, heart damage. And they go to doctor, to doctor and the doctors will say, "I'm not sure exactly what you have, I'm not sure what this is due to, but I can tell you one thing, it's not due to the vaccine."
Mr. Jekielek: They really say that.
Dr. McCullough: They say that and the patients are furious. The patients are furious, what do you mean it's not due to the vaccine? Nope, it's not due to the vaccine. The doctors have a willful blindness to vaccine injuries. And so for those reasons, whatever data we're seeing in the safety database is a tiny, tiny fraction of the reality.
And you get into any conversation right now in a group of people, start talking about vaccine injury. Everybody starts raising their hand. Oh yeah, I know somebody who died, I know somebody who had a blood clot. I know somebody who had heart damage or what have you. And now the mortality of working age individuals, of family members who are making claims against life insurance payouts is skyrocketing. Mortality is on the rise because working age people, the only new exposure now is the COVID-19 vaccine program.
Mr. Jekielek: How can we actually get to the truth here of what's really happening? What are the studies that need to be done? How can we do that in this current climate?
Mr. Leake: The truth is there that's plain to see, it's just only you guys are trying to figure it out. Where is it? And point the public to it. It's all out in the open. You were expressing interest earlier in Mattia Desmond. We actually have a... I'm very interested in Switzerland, because Switzerland is kind of HQ of the bio-pharmaceutical complex. There was a Swiss playwright named Max Frisch, who wrote a play in 1953 called “Biedermann and the Arsonists.” And it's a fun little play because what he's presenting is well, just to tell you the story real quick.
There's a nice, honest middle class guy, Biedermann is German for middle class man, he's reading the newspaper. There are arsonists that are afoot in his town and they're burning down houses. He reads in the paper that their modus operandi is to knock on the door, say they're a traveling salesman and ask if they can have overnight lodgings. They've sort of gotten caught out and they don't have a place to stay.
And Heir Biedermann reads this. And he says, "Well, who could be so gullible to fall for such a thing?" And then the next scene, the doorbell rings. And it's these two young charming kind of funny guys. And they introduce themselves as traveling salesmen, “Hey, do you think we could spend the night in your place?” And in this moment it's so out in the open, it's so just right in front of them, of Mr. Biedermann and his wife that they don't see, it's hiding in plain sight.
He invites them in, they go up to the attic apartment and they set fire to the house. It then catches the entire town and the whole town burns down. And then the final scene of the play, Mr and Mrs. Biedermann are transported to the gates of hell, where they meet the two arsonists. And they say, "Sorry, but what were you thinking? I'm the devil and this is my best friend Beelzebub, what were you thinking?" And so people have asked what was Max Frisch thinking with this?
And there is this strange phenomenon that can happen in a society and his compatriot, Carl Jung, the great Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Jung wrote about this as well. People will get into this mass way, this group think way of responding to the world, that they failed to see what is right in front of them. It's right there, just open your eyes. Dr. McCullough and I have discovered in our research, there doesn't have to be legal discovery. The actors involved in this, they publish their business plan, they do pandemic planning simulations, and they publish the videos. We talk about propaganda, they openly speak about flooding the zone of controlling information, declaring by dictatorial executive what is prop? What is truth and what is misinformation? I mean, it's all out in the open Jan.
Dr. McCullough: I give you a concrete example. The vaccines are resulting in large numbers of people dying. It's in the open. Pfizer dutifully recorded 1,223 patients dying after they've received the vaccine of people. They died and people called to Pfizer saying, "My loved one died." Pfizer recorded all of those deaths within 90 days. A standard is whether it's caused by the product or not, causality doesn't matter. Causality it's not part of the regulatory safety thing. It's just, if it happened, pull it off the market and study what happens, something.
It's in the open, it's in the open. Pfizer CEO, Albert Bourla instead of saying, "Well, now that this has been revealed in the court ordered documents, here let me explain what happened or let me assign a team and we'll start to analyze the vignettes." No, he's out advising on TV on third and fourth shots. This is in the open. The FDA wanted to block the Pfizer dossier for 55 years. They knew Pfizer was resulting in large numbers of deaths. The FDA has not commissioned a review. The FDA has not told Pfizer, why don't you go ahead and voluntarily recall.
I've been involved in product recalls before. I've chaired data safety and monitoring boards and safety review boards. There's been no call for a safety review board. The willful blindness is in the open. Even if we were to do a causality assessment, we would go through what's called the Bradford Hill Criteria for Causality. We would say broadly, "Is there a large signal?" Yes, that's an astronomical number of deaths. 50 deaths would be the most we'd ever tolerate with a product. We would never ask somebody to take an injection and then die. We would never ask anyone to do that.
Never, I don't care how good the product was. I don't care how dangerous the disease would be. We would never say, "Listen, take this product," or let alone say, "Listen, take this product or you lose your job." We would never do that. So A, it's a very large signal. Number two, we'd say what's the temporal association? Turns out 80 percent of these deaths occur within a week. 50 percent would occur within a couple days. It's tightly temporally related.
I was driving across Florida on a lecture tour, stopped for a cup of coffee. Somebody came in and recognized me, said, "Dr. McCullough, I want to tell you my story." I said, "What?" She goes, "Six months ago, I took my father in for a vaccine. I thought it was a good idea. He was old, he was frail. He took the vaccine, he died in the passenger seat on the way home."
Listen, even the deaths that have occurred right in the vaccine center, the CDC and FDA have not owned up to. The bottom line is, there's a very strong temporal association. Then we'd ask the question, is there any internal consistency? Are there near misses? Well, of course there are, there's blood clots, there's heart attacks. There are myocarditis and there's fatal cases reported in the peer of your literature.
There is a fatal vaccine induced myocarditis in a peer of literature. Forget Pfizer, forget the FDA, it's in our literature. So yes, it's internally consistent. Is it externally consistent? Yes. If we go in the yellow card system in the UK, the user system in the EU, it's all externally consistent. Now we see life insurance companies record numbers of deaths since we started the COVID-19 vaccines. It's externally consistent. We see record numbers of athletes dying on the field in Europe who have on these teams that have mandated the vaccines is externally consistent.
The last question we'd ask is, what about randomized trials? We must have randomized trials rely on yes, the Pfizer program, there are more deaths with Pfizer than placebo in randomized data. We fulfilled all the Bradford Hill Criteria. I can tell you in a legal court of law, we'd say on a more probable, not than basis and probably clear and convincing basis that the vaccines are causing the death of people who take them, who are unfortunate enough to be in the next person.
And Mark Geodel from France gets credit for this. He's basically come up with a phrase, the Russian Roulette Theory of COVID-19 vaccination. There's a roulette wheel that's ruined and whatever that number, when it comes up wrong person, wrong time, maybe wrong batch, maybe the right uptake of the genetic material in a strategic organ, in a patient at risk, a wild production of spike protein for an uncontrolled duration, uncontrolled quality of time. The spike protein we know is lethal, that's not of debate. The spike protein is lethal. The question is, in the wrong person at the wrong time, is too much made that kills them? And it looks like sadly for a large number of people, it is fatal.
Mr. Jekielek: So much more we could discuss here. Like I said, 45 poetically named chapters in the book. Any final thoughts as we finish up Peter?
Dr. McCullough: Unfortunately, the pandemic continues. We're now well into our third year of the pandemic. We've been through wild type, alpha, beta, gamma, Delta, Omicron. Now we're in another upswing, it has all the shape and characteristics of something that will be as sizeable as Delta in terms of its outbreak peak. It looks like the virus has found new victims, new pockets of susceptibility, largely the vaccinated.
Our CDC told us on December 10th, 2021, MMWR, that 79 percent of Omicron patients we're fully vaccinated. Now we can think of celebrity after celebrity. We've talked about many of them. Now they're all fully vaccinated. That's who the virus is praying upon, the vaccines obviously don't work. They don't stop. COVID-19, neither the initial case, nor do they stop transmission. And the vaccines, unfortunately have a catastrophic effect on safety, the risk of death and serious non-fatal injuries and disabilities. And everyone knows that's the reason why there are mass public protests.
That's the reason why people are angry about mandates for vaccines, by which they could lose their life. Meanwhile, the viruses become progressively more treatable. I can tell you as a doctor who's been treating this from the very beginning, the cases get easier and easier because the virus is more amenable to treatment. There are milder symptoms and our therapies are better and our combinations are better. And we start earlier and recognition is earlier.
I can tell you it's all good. The thing that needs to happen now is all mandates need to be dropped immediately. Immediately. There is no room for mandates that violates one's principle of autonomy, their principle of making their own medical freedom. In a civil society mandates have no role, and the vaccines, at least the ones we have. Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson immediately pulled off the market and a safety review undertaken.
Now, if safer vaccines are proven, Novavax, Covovax or others, and they would be applied to a narrow stratum, nursing home population, elderly seniors, those who have lung disease. Fine. I don't think any doctor has any problem with vaccines, narrowly applied in a careful and measured and well monitored setting. But we have been burned, this has been in a sense the crime of our lifetime, if not of all time, of a mass vaccination of the world in the middle of a highly prevalent and evolving pandemic.
Mr. Jekielek: Just one quick follow up, the Canadian parliament, just passws keeping the federal travel mandate—vaccine mandate. Basically if you want to travel within Canada on a plane or outside of Canada on a plane, you need to be vaccinated, period. Otherwise, you don't travel, your thoughts on that?
Dr. McCullough: Linking vaccines to basic life necessity, some people need to travel for their job or to see their family members. Linking vaccines that are not sufficiently safe, that are not sufficiently effective and not even fully approved that our experimental vaccines to personal liberty and freedoms is out of bounds in any civil society, including Canada. Those rules need to be dropped immediately.
Mr. Jekielek: Final thoughts, John?
Mr. Leake: I think that we need to understand what's happening here, that unlike the great empire builders of the past, that we're interested in military conquest, what we have and I think there's an abundance of evidence that what we're seeing is an ambition to impose a global governance, not by military means. I think we've discovered that military operations are very messy and violent and they don't really work.
What I think the certain key actors and this complex, as we describe it, have discovered that if you want to rule mankind, the best way to do it is through public health policy. There is a visceral fear of an emerging epidemic and this lockstep scenario of the various heads of state all agreeing to these measures that are proposed, vehemently proposed by the bio-pharmaceutical complex. I think it's a mechanism for imposing global governance that supersedes all national jurisdictions.
That's the ambition, that's the aspiration, and we're certainly seeing this now with proposal for World Health Organization International Treaty. And I think that we, particularly here in America, we have the oldest written constitution in the world. We need to get back to the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and our founding father, James Madison. It's the prudent citizenry, not a centralized state that is going to guide us out of this thing. And we make a mistake of seeding all of this emergency power to highly fallible and highly corruptible politicians and public health agency bosses.
Mr. Jekielek: John Leake, Dr. Peter McCullough, such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Mr. Leake: Thank you Jan.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining John Leake and Dr. Peter McCullough and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. The book again is, “THE COURAGE TO FACE COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.” I'm your host Jan Jekielek. The Epoch Times is growing quickly and we're currently hiring an associate producer to join the Epoch TV team to work on both American Thought Leaders and Cassius corner. It's a time of rampant misinformation and propaganda, and you'll be part of the solution as we bring back honest journalism. If you're interested or you know someone who might be a good fit, head over to ept.ms/associateproducer. That's ept.ms/associateproducer, all one word. We look forward to hearing from you.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.
* Click the "Save" button below the video to access it later on "My List".
Follow EpochTV on social media: