Welcome to our podcast where I, Alicia Swamy, Kealy Severson, and Erik Johnson are exposing mold. Today we have a wonderful guest, Dr. Peter McCullough. Dr. Peter McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas, Texas. Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published, "Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) Infection", the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS COV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has 42 peer reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the Covid-19 crisis in TheHill and on Fox News. On November 19 2020, Dr. mercola testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response. Dr. McCullough is also the President of Cardiorenal Society of America, is Editor in Chief of the Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, and is the Senior Associate Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology. And first and foremost, I just wanted to say thank you for upholding your Hippocratic oath and being one of the first physicians to take action to help patients overcome COVID. I'm sure that your paper on early outpatient treatment for COVID has helped guide many doctors through this. Now, I just wanted you to go ahead and tell us a little bit more about yourself and the pivotal role that you've played in helping patients through COVID.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Great, thanks for having me on the show. It's really a pleasure. And thanks to each and every one of you listening. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough, I'm an internist and cardiologist. I've maintained my board certifications in both and I see patients every week of the year clinically, in my hospital-based clinic. And I am a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine on the Baylor Dallas campus. We're the largest clinical campus for Texas A&M, and I've been academically involved my whole career as a cardiologist. I have a degree in epidemiology from University of Michigan, and I am the Editor in Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. I'm the Senior Associate Editor for the American Journal of Cardiology, probably the best known journal in all of cardiology. And I publish in really what's considered the Bible of Cardiology is called Braunwald's textbook of cardiovascular medicine. But when COVID-19 hit, my life really changed. And I tell you in over a year, I basically have done a fellowship in virology and in epidemiology, and I was well prepared for it. I had chaired data safety monitoring boards of over two dozen clinical trials. I'm currently the chairman of a NIH clinical trial. I've communicated with the FDA throughout my career as a principal investigator. So I was ready to rock and roll when this hit. And I started to see things really going off kilter last spring, where doctors were not treating sick patients with COVID-19 to prevent hospitalization and death, and no one in any of the governmental bodies, or the doctors, medical societies, was actually mentioning or framing the problem, which is that patients were getting sick at home for two weeks, and then ending up with one or two bad outcomes hospitalization or death.
Alicia Swamy:Yeah, thank you for that. I actually watched a presentation that you had given and you talked about being the second front line for COVID-19. Can you maybe describe what you meant by that?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well, early last year, we heard about what's called frontline workers and those workers were basically dealing with sick COVID patients in the hospital. And everybody thought that was a high risk activity. Workers were wearing hazmat suits and what have you, but Americans know that there were no major outbreaks in hospitals. We didn't have 1000s of hospital workers get COVID. I mean, it happens sporadically. And it turns out when the majority of patients get admitted to the hospital, they're no longer infectious. They've actually been at home for two weeks where they were infectious at home and now they're being admitted to the hospital, because there's inflammation and blood clotting is really the problems going on. And that's the reason why the drugs that worked against the virus that is remdesivir and convalescent plasma, that's reason why they were so modest in their effect in the hospital. So we've learned a lot in the last year. We realized that the virus replicates in the human body early and that but replication can maybe go as long as two weeks. Most of the time it's done in five to 10 days. So that means that when the patient does get to the hospital, they in many times are no longer infectious, even though they're put into isolation. We know that there's a second phase where the immune system goes crazy and patients have a different type of inflammation than asthma, or than rheumatologic conditions. It features interleukin six, a cytokine, that's not typically elevated, and it trips off the coagulation cascade. And we now understand the spike protein and the spicular, the spine on the ball of the virus causes blood vessel injury, and prompts a coagulation in the human body. So is understanding those three processes; viral replication, cytokine storm, and coagulation made us understand that there was no single drug to treat COVID-19. So the very first discussions we had of, oh, this drug work, that drug doesn't work. And I said, No, no, no drug is gonna work. No drug works in COVID-19 alone. They only must work in combination. This is no different than acute HIV or Hepatitis C, it's drugs in combination. I was the only one out there at the time saying drugs in combination. Don't put up a single drug to fail. And so what we did is we innovated, we did put drugs into combination. We broke through the medical literature which was suppressing any word on treatment to doctors and patients. And we published the first critical paper in the American Journal of Medicine in August of 2020. Follow up paper in December 2020, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine to this date, those two papers are the most frequently downloaded papers of those journals. And it really is a testament to how how, what a great need we filled with peer reviewed publications on protocol based approaches. Now fortunately, the outcomes data did come in. Dr. Vladimir's lyco in New York City and then Brian Proctor in Dallas here both showed that when drugs are used in combination, different drugs in different combinations, about four to six drugs, there's an 85% reduction in hospitalization and death from expected values. To this day, we don't even have a single randomized trial that's testing three or four or five drugs in a combination. None. They're not even planned. So when people say, Oh, we need to have evidence from large clinical trials. I said, Those don't even exist. Medicine is both an art and a science. And we have to use our judgment to save patients. And it's gratifying to see that we we did have an effect after the two sets of US Senate hearings. Towards the end of December, early January, we crushed the curve in the United States, it never came back. Mexico said the same thing, crushed curve. Down in South America, multiple countries crushed the curve. Most recently in India, they crushed the curve with early treatment.
Alicia Swamy:Wow. That's amazing. Thank you so much. Do you think that's why US has the highest death rate because we're not focusing on early treatments, we're focusing more on vaccinations?
Dr. Peter McCullough:There's a couple of reasons why we have the highest death rates is we A, we did get hit early, and the virus doesn't hit countries uniformly, it hits it in various locations. And the earlier versions of the virus were far more lethal. So when the virus got out of Wuhan, China, it left pretty quickly, never really came back. But when it hit Milan, Italy. If you look at the mortality rates in Milan metro area, Milan, it's like a it's like a big city. It's like LA, the mortality rates are still sky high. And all that really high mortality in the United States is all driven by New York, New Jersey, and Detroit. Honestly, those are the high mortality. You know, Texas. Yeah, we had deaths, but we ended up what we you know, we're the third most populous state in the country, we ended up 24th in terms of mortality is just because we didn't by the time the virus really got to Texas, it had mutated so much. Currently, we have about 14 different strains in the United States. But the original strain that hit New York is long gone.
Alicia Swamy:I don't know if this is a rumor, but I read that they cannot make a vaccine if there's existing medications that can treat the disease. Can you speak more to that?
Dr. Peter McCullough:I don't think that's true. The emergency use authorization is a new form of entry of a drug on the market. Its fairly loosely written, but vaccines would be indicated for the prevention of COVID-19. Remember, a vaccine doesn't treat the illness. And so drugs that would treat COVID-19 would have a separate indication. So we do have drugs by Lilly, Regeneron, and now GlaxoSmithKline that are EUA approved. And then we can add in remdesivir and convalescent plasma, though they're EUA approved for the treatment of COVID-19. And then we have the vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19. But, you know, existing drugs for treatment wouldn't prohibit vaccines. They are two separate indications.
Alicia Swamy:I'm going to go ahead and turn the questioning over to Erik I believe he has some some things he would love to ask you.
Erik Johnson:Yeah. Can you explain the difference to us between the classic vaccines and what this current treatment is?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well, the classic vaccines have been something so simple as just giving a protein like an antigen, like a tetanus booster, where the body just reacts to in a sense of dead protein. Another form of a classic vaccine could be a dead virus, so completely inactivated virus, it can't go anywhere, we just respond to it. And then the probably the most vaccine is most active, what's really considered live attenuated. So there's a virus, it's alive, it's injected in you, but the virus is disabled. So it actually can't enter cells and replicate. So those are kind of the three forms of classic vaccines. With the current vaccines and I think that's where you're going. The technology is brand new in a market departure.
Erik Johnson:So there's a question that by programming the immune system to react specifically to the spike proteins, and not to the virus itself, that this could actually create a weaker immune response, because the immune system will respond with the antibody production to its programming rather than to variants.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well, let's talk about that. So the new genre of vaccines are called genetic vaccines. So that's Pfizer, Moderna , J&J, and AstraZeneca. So they can be divided into messenger RNA vaccines, that's synthetic messenger RNA, and that's Pfizer, Moderna, or what's called the Adenoviridae, and that would be Johnson and Johnson and AstraZeneca. The reason they're new and novel is they've never been used as effective vaccines before. And they were actually designed to treat chronic diseases. So these were designed to stick around in the body for a very long time, particularly the messenger RNA platforms. So to take them and then kind of move them forward in a rushed manner for a vaccine is worrisome. And they have a worrisome mechanism of action. What all these vaccines do, is they trick the body into making the spike protein, the dangerous part of the virus, in an uncontrolled fashion. So when the messenger RNA is delivered to the human body, we don't know how much is going to be taken up, where it's going to be taken up, and how much spike protein is going to be generated. When spike protein is generated inside of cells, it destroys those cells. And then when it gets outside the cell and circulates, it injures other organs, including the heart, the brain, the lungs, the gastrointestinal tract, kidneys, and when it circulates, it also destroys red blood cells and blood vessels and causes blood clotting. So the mechanism of the genetic vaccines is very worrisome, just by description. Any common sense person would say, wait a minute, it sounds like these could be pretty, pretty dangerous to use. And that's what we found out is they're extraordinarily dangerous to use. And that mechanism of action. You know, just from the outset, was of great concern.
Erik Johnson:Is there any possibility that a common Coronavirus could trigger a cytokine cascade because of the programming from this current vaccine?
Dr. Peter McCullough:No, I don't think so. I'm not so sure if the current vaccine sets us up for future disaster, but it does do things immediately that are very, very concerning. So this production of spike protein, in organs and cells is very concerning. It's now known and all this has been uncovered in the last month or so, because the vaccine skipped all the steps of development. So they skipped the genotoxicity studies, the teratogenicity studies, we don't know if they cause birth defects or not, and they skipped oncogenicity studies, they skip the cancer, whether or not they cause cancer. So what we've learned in the last couple of weeks or pieces together, is we know these vaccines go everywhere in the human body. They don't break down very readily. They've been found in the brain now, production of spike protein in the brain. They circulate widely in the body that's disturbing. They cause tremendous local inflammation. So for instance, when a woman takes the vaccine, it causes so much local inflammation it distorts the breast, where the breast is not even amenable to mammograms. So now we have to wait a year to actually do a mammogram on a woman has taken one of the vaccines. And then very disturbingly from a regulatory report that was submitted to the Japanese authorities by Pfizer, we now know the vaccines, the lipid nanoparticles that they circulate and actually concentrate in the female ovaries and this is very disturbing. They actually get taken up in all the organs and wash out after about 48 hours, the lipid particles do but they concentrate against the gradient of all the other organs. They selectively concentrate in the ovaries. That explains a lot because women from the very beginning seem to be, you know, vaccine victims, if you will. They have ovulatory problems, changes in their periods, postmenopausal women have vaginal bleeding. So we had a sense that the genetic vaccines had some ovarian targeting. And then most recently, we've understood that the spike protein circulates for about two weeks, and there was no restriction on these patients giving blood donations. So now we know the human blood supply to hospitals and patients who are critically ill is contaminated with the spike protein, it's also contaminated with the the genetic material. That's very worrisome. And then the final thing I'd say is people have worried about women of childbearing potential, and pregnant women. What we learn there is that in the Moderna application to the European Medicine agency that Moderna did reduce fertility in women, and we understand from a New England Journal Medicine manuscript of which there is a different interpretation on what the authors gave, because women had not been followed through nine months of pregnancy, we're only given certain windows of time. Our estimates are that women in the first trimester, 83% of them lose their babies in the first trimester if they take the vaccine. So to summarize, the mechanism action of the vaccine is worrisome and dangerous. There are clearly organ injury syndromes that we're seeing, brain syndromes part, myocarditis, blood clotting, and blood clotting syndromes. We're seeing what looks to be dangerous in women of childbearing potential, potentially, fertility issues and clearly threats to the baby. And we would common sense, understand that we would never inject something a biologically dangerous substance into a pregnant woman's body. So we know there that we're, we're causing difficulty. Now the sights are set on the children. And there's great concern that the spike protein could damage the children influence growth and development, and all of this really for no benefit. And that's really the challenging thing with the vaccines. There's reports now in the last week out of Israel and an Edinburgh, Scotland, that the vaccines are completely useless against the Delta variant. And so this variant easily gets past the vaccine. About half of patients in both groups there actually are fully vaccinated or partially vaccinated and they still get COVID-19. Fortunately, a Delta variant is very mild, it's like having a cold, but the vaccines are going to prove to be useless. And from a safety perspective, they're really going to be just, they're going to go down in history as the biggest biological disaster we've ever seen. We're at about 6,000 vaccine deaths. And they typically happen in days one, two, or three after the vaccine 20,000 vaccine hospitalizations, over probably over 100,000 ER visits, office visits a total of 300,000 safety reports. And we think that's just the tip of the iceberg. That may be only 10% of what's really happening. So this is an unqualified biological disaster for for the US and the world.
Erik Johnson:I've heard that research into nanoparticle based medicines has unveiled a new syndrome, a new mechanism called
CARPA:complement activation reaction pseudoallergy, where the immune system bypasses the innate immunity and responds directly to the surface energy of the nanoparticle, causing an immune over response. Do you have any indication that some of these adverse events from vaccinations might be undiagnosed cases of CARPA?
Dr. Peter McCullough:You know, it's hard to know, for these cases if complement is measured. So for instance, I just saw a patient in the office yesterday, who has vaccine induced myocarditis and he had all the characteristic features of that cardiac injury syndrome. And it never crossed my mind to measure complements, maybe I should have. I'm aware of another case in the hospital where a patient did look like they could have a complement based, it just never came up but retrospectively thinking about it, it would apply. So you may be onto something we know that that 75% of individuals are sensitized to polyethylene glycol from prior experience, and these particles have polyethylene glycol, and we know that some of the deaths are what's called analphylactiod deaths where they die right in the vaccine center and people start doing CPR and that's reason why they have the resuscitation equipment there. So I think some of the acute the kind of hyper acute reactions clearly could be related to that, you know, which is incredulous. The sponsors of the vaccine program, the FDA and the CDC on two occasions now have said that none of the deaths are due to the vaccine.
Erik Johnson:You mentioned red cell abnormalities. Have you seen reports of unusually low erythrocyte sedimentation rate?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well we've seen, I wouldn't say low but I would say low for expected. So there seems to be basically a disconnect between the C reactive protein and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate the CRP goes up. In fact, the feature marker that goes up is the D dimer, and D dimer in this syndrome is actually predictive of thrombosis. We've published with a coracle group that we can even use traditional stroke predictors, such as the Chad's score, in order to actually predict who's at risk for thrombosis. We liberally use anticoagulants in the syndrome, and people over 50, and at risk. But the pattern is interesting to see that the CRP is up, sed rate is down, the interleukin 6 is up, it's a distinct syndrome, it's very different than what we'd see for, let's say, temporal arteritis or some of these other conditions where everything has, you know, is in concert with one another.
Erik Johnson:As Alicia mentioned, I'm a prototype for the original Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. And now people are trying to draw comparisons between long COVID and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and one of the things that's never mentioned, is that the first Chronic Fatigue Syndrome outbreak was actually started by a marathon runner, who returned from China with an unusual Chinese flu. This Chinese food pass through the community and had the most unusual demographic, in who it affected and how it was transmitted. And as you mentioned, with COVID, it was unusual that there weren't any huge outbreaks in hospitals, what the doctors would expect that they're on the frontlines of this, they would be the first ones to have a major outbreak. And that was exactly what we saw in this 1985, Chinese flu, which came to be called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. And the low sed rate was a hallmark of this syndrome.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Hmm.
Erik Johnson:And part of the reason why this podcast is called the Exposing Mold is because the doctors brought up the observation that they weren't getting sick that this was a horrible, contagious illness as described, that they would have got it. And yet they weren't falling, like teachers in certain buildings or casino workers were. And we found out that these buildings were full of toxic mold, which we later learned to be highly immune suppressive. And it became my speculation that the immune suppression of this particular agent was causing immune escape that the viruses were actually allowed to replicate in vulnerable hosts. And these sick buildings were serving as a locus for spreading the more virulent infection. Does this sound reasonable?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Yeah, that's a very interesting observation that could SARS COV-2 have some immunosuppressive effects on it. We do get some hints of that you mentioned the sed rate being done. The other parameter that's unusually down is the total lymphocyte count and it's almost as if someone has acute HIV. So a closer look at the spike protein, the spike protein has two segments s-one and s-two, at the base segment near the nucleocapsid, there's four loops of code for HIV and codes for several different aspects of HIV, including the glycoprotein. And if that spike protein is folded a different way, those epitopes are exposed, and you can actually become HIV positive. And we know that because in the Australian first version of the vaccine, they had folded the spike protein in certain way and sure enough 100% of people in the first COVID vaccine program in Australia turned HIV positive. Now they didn't have the HIV virus. But it just goes to show you that spike protein is really man made, in many ways. It started out with the natural spike protein of SARS one and it was modified to the gain of function research that was supported through the US NIH, the National allergy and Immunology Division(NAID), they funded again a function research, they provide intellectual property from years to North Carolina Chapel Hill, and then I'm not sure who coded into HIV to that, but but whoever gets touched by the spike protein is getting some exposure to that antigen. So I mean, I personally had COVID-19 so I know I had the exposure, everybody getting the vaccine is in a sense getting an intentional dosage of a product of gain of function research and it looks like it was bioterrorism research. Now I can't see other any other reason to make a Coronavirus more infectious and more deadly.
Erik Johnson:My understanding is that they do these gain of function studies in order to be able to counter it in the event that some enemy should unleash bioterrorism type, a modified virus. So understand that because they're doing gain to function research doesn't necessarily mean that they're trying to develop bio weapons that maybe this could be an effort to control them. But either way, if they get out of the lab, they're certainly going to act like a biological agent.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Right. Okay. That's a fair comment. I wanted to return to your comment about post infectious diseases and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. You know, there's an entire history of many rheumatologic diseases that occur after an acute, viral some type of viral infection or some type of infection of unknown etiology. So there's clearly a track record there. There's well described syndromes that are recognized now by the American College of Physicians like a post Lyme disease syndrome that is a real Chronic Fatigue like Syndrome. It has some other features to it. And we are seeing with COVID-19, a real post infectious syndrome so called long COVID or long hauler. What we know there is that of those individuals who have a long untreated course and they end up in the hospital, sick enough to be in the hospital, there's a 50% chance they will have some manifestation of COVID long hauler syndrome, including fatigue, effort intolerance, headaches, various other neurologic phenomenon. They can have evidence of inflammation around the heart called pericarditis, gastrointestinal disturbances. These are the features of patients do sustain lung damage, we've seen many cases of permanent pulmonary injury, some that you know become really pulmonary transplant candidate level injury in patients, so the virus is tremendously damaging. Fortunately, with early treatment, we know we can cut that viral replication phase down to about four days or shorter. We need to use drugs in combination. We have a tractable belief. We can't prove it yet, but a tractable belief that early treatment and making the viral infection as short as possible, with the least severe symptoms, not only reduces hospitalization and death, but hopefully reduces the risk of long hauler syndrome. The patients have been admitted to the hospital in the United States, millions of them, almost all of them receive no early treatment. Conversely, almost everybody who receives multidrug high quality early treatment at home never gets admitted. Even President Trump received the monoclonal antibodies and other drugs in combination. He was in Walter Reed preventively. But he could have easily been managed in the White House, you saw him and he just kind of breeze through it. That's how a patient in their 70s looks like when they get multidrug treatment. COVID-19 is a very, very treatable illness. Conversely, if Trump got zero medications, and he just sat there day by day, he could have worsened over the course of two weeks and ended up in the hospital. So it's night and day, he was a real living example for America about the power of early multi drug treatment.
Erik Johnson:One of the hallmarks of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was a response to activity to exercise, a delayed ability to recover from exercise. So there was a correlation between those who attempted to go back to an active life and went on to become more severe, it seemed that early bedrest was indicated to head off more severe complications down the road. Are you seeing the same thing?
Dr. Peter McCullough:You know, I'm not so sure about that. There's been different innovators. One innovator here in Dallas was Yvette Lozano who ran one of the most voluminous early COVID treatment centers her and her staff contracted the virus, they recovered, and then they were really strong. They ran six rooms for their clinic, they saw a massive number of patients to exercise people through. So just the opposite of that bed rest, they actually exercise people through acute COVID-19. I personally had it myself, I was on an FDA approved protocol using hydroxychloroquine and other drugs in combination. And I can tell you on illness day eight, and on treatment, day six, I knew I had already cleared the virus. I cleared the virus in four days with serial swabs. I exercised on day eight, I ran two miles to a park and two miles back. I have to tell you, I was so short of breath, I felt like I was on Mount Everest because I had pulmonary involvement, but I was outside breathing fresh air, diffusing that virus and I do think fresh air, nutraceuticals, you know good hydration, all that makes a difference in terms of survivability, versus hospitalization and death and COVID-19.
Erik Johnson:I just saw an article suggesting that long COVID might be linked to chronic reactivated Epstein-Barr Virus, which is what Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was suspected to be, but because nobody really looked into the original cohort, the cluster that was investigated by the Center for Disease Control, and upon which the center was based, we actually had a slightly different problem. We had a different virus. And just as you mentioned, we had a lowering of lymphocytes. In fact, on cell flow cytometry, our B cells were non detectable. So we later found that this was due to a reactivation of a different virus, Human Herpes Virus Six. So I'm thinking this could be a confounder in long COVID because some people will see a B cell proliferation from active Epstein-Barr Virus, while others might be seeing the exact opposite from Cytomegalovirus or HHV6.
Dr. Peter McCullough:That's an interesting observation. There were a couple of papers published about overlap syndromes. One of them was overlap between mycoplasma and chlamydia pneumonia, a typical bacteria in COVID-19, the number was about 2% to 3% on the overlap, and that's one of the justifications and why we always use azithro or doxycycline up front. And then there was this interesting observation that influenza basically was at a very low level last year while COVID-19 dominated. So I reached out to kind of key experts in the oral dentistry in Periodontology field and had a chance to interview Dr. Paul Gossett from Chicago who's really renowned person as an anti infective dentist. And what I learned is the Epstein-Barr Virus as well as Cytomegalovirus is actually in the gums that actually causes Gingivitis and the American Dental Association has approved methods of actually dealing with these viruses and of interest. It involves using, believe it or not household bleach, one teaspoon or five cc's of household bleach in 500 cc's of water and swishing it around in the mouth is paying out twice a day. That's standard if you have Epstein-Barr Virus in the mouth or Cytomegalovirus. You can also use povidone iodine that's diluted and there's a dilution there. There's a povidone iodine throat spray, it's available over amazon.com throat spray twice a day. And in a prospective comparative study from Singapore. Just using these local hygiene approaches. They use the throat spray that reduced the rate of symptomatic COVID-19. So I learned that what Dr. Gossett told me was listen dentists have been in the mouths of people all the way through the pandemic. You haven't heard about any dental outbreaks at all, zero, because they immediately started using these anti infective dental techniques to probably neutralize the virus on site in the mouth and probably also coincidentally knocking down Cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr Virus. One last point for your listeners. I learned from Dr. Gossett something important I'm going to change in my habits. He said the best thing to brush with is not toothpaste. Believe it or not. It's best to brush with the yellow Listerine and that actually brushing with Listerine works as a in a sense an anti septi, anti infective. Against some of these the mouth flora. The mouth flora is both bacterial and viral. So I know I learned a lot from him. And then what I learned with COVID-19 is there's so many different ways to manage this. And instead of just wearing masks and getting railroaded into the vaccine, we needed innovation, we needed creativity. We needed doctors and dentists and other healthcare providers to actually work with the art and the science of medicine. If anything good has come out of COVID-19 we're far more collaborative. I'm seeing allopathic doctors, working with naturopathic doctors, working with dentists and Periodontology, and physical therapists we're much more multidisciplinary now because the virus called us together.
Erik Johnson:Fantastic. Now, a lot of us are wondering whether or not we should get the virus and I guess if you believe that your innate immune response is better equipped to deal with it, the answer would obviously be no, but the people who are already immune suppressed by having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are curious as to what's going to happen to them? And they've actually been scared into demanding this virus, when here at Lake Tahoe, Chronic Fatigue Cyndrome central. When COVID passed through, we didn't see any significant adverse outcomes from it. It seemed to be nothing more than a normal flu.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Yeah, it's such an interesting observation. The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA excluded immune deficient patients from the clinical trials. They didn't think the vaccine was going to work in those individuals. So you won't find any transplant patients, patients with immunoglobulin deficiencies, anything like that would be immune deficient. And so there are key clinics with immune deficient patients and who've taken it and some patients have taken the vaccine, the doctors are paying attention. One of them is Dr. Raphael Stricker, out in San Francisco, he's a leading hematologist immunologist, and there is a large proportion of patients who've been vaccinated, and they have immune deficiencies, and they're not generating significant viral titers. They're not. And so it's one of these things the FDA and CDC was right, immune deficient patients, the vaccine looks like is unlikely to be helpful. And that means all we're going to get is side effects. Any of these groups where the vaccine doesn't do anything positive. All that does is tipped the scale on to being a negative. I recently had a doctor who is a dean of a medical school, but he had polymyalgia rheumatica another state that's really difficult, and he's on chronic corticosteroids at a pretty high dose, he absolutely, positively should not get the vaccine. It was never tested in his case, it's unlikely to work and all it can do is cause misadventure.
Erik Johnson:If you have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and are on the verge of viral reactivation, and elevated RNA cell, so your body's already primed for chewing up anti viral enzymes. Is it possible that this is acting as a protectant against COVID-19?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Now it's possible we've seen very low rates of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, there's been a few groups that it's been so interesting to watch. Conversely, we've seen higher rates of symptomatic disease and diabetes, obesity, heart and lung disease, it may be that is either the drugs that people are taking or the fastidious nature and the way they live, or the disease process itself. That seems to result in lower absolute incident rates and actually lower hospitalization and death. About 15% of the general population cannot get COVID, they actually have some type of natural defense mechanisms against it. One of the many wrong things our public health officials have done is they assume everybody can get COVID-19. They assume everybody needs the vaccine, that's the farthest thing from the truth. The Chinese taught us many others did to, studies in the United States. If we have a family of six people in the house, and they all get COVID-19, there's typically one or two people who won't get it, that they just they're not susceptible to COVID-19.
Erik Johnson:And the final point is that we have such a strong correlation of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome of post viral, long COVID type of situation in sick buildings. Do you know that if anybody's doing any studies looking for that type of correlation?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Oh, we definitely need to. Like I said, so far what we know is prolonged illness, more severe illness stay in the ICU related to long COVID. But I would not be surprised if there's other environmental factors, patients who, you know, get very little fresh air and so they just have this prolonged inoculum of COVID-19, or maybe just recurrent exposures to it over and over again, to kind of whatever pathophysiologic you know, processes are set up to keep juicing it with recurrent exposure. One of the great concerns I'd have is in a post COVID long hauler syndrome to actually take the vaccine and reduce the system with spike protein. I had a patient like that yesterday in the office and it was a disaster. He had long COVID syndrome, who was suffering, he was a doctor, he had peripheral neuropathy, cerebellar findings, fatigue, he just felt awful. And then he made the, you know, ill advised decision to go ahead and take, I think Pfizer or Moderna, and now he's really in trouble. He's really sick. So keep in mind these types of patients would have been excluded from the clinical trials, the vaccines, if they play any role at all right now, it's very, very limited in people who we'd have to take on a case by case basis. The vaccines are not generally recommended at this point in time. There are calls in the UK formal calls from the Evidence Based Consulting Group, which is the lead consulting firm to the WHO. There are formal calls to go ahead and withdraw all the COVID-19 vaccines off the market. The US FDA has two petitions in at this point in time, one from nurses and one from doctors that are very well put together. They're calling on the FDA to not approve these vaccines. And if we close out the EUA program, the vaccine should go off the market. So, you know, I think Americans ought to know, you know, the vaccine centers have been empty for months now. No one's taking the vaccine. And, you know, they're at the point where the coercion and the pressuring is gross and it's distorted. I mean, they're offering million dollar raffles if someone is you know, so unwise to take the vaccine or offering free college scholarships. They're trying to force the vaccine nine kids in college but yet the professor's won't take it. We know the CDC, NIH and FDA, they're not taking the vaccine. You know, we have some hospitals trying to use the vaccine as a menace, as a weapon on the patients. Houston Methodist and recently Brigham and Women's, all of these are taking something that was a purely elective emergency offering, and then weaponizing the vaccine from a sociological perspective. It is, I think, a sociologist and in kind of group psychologists and psychiatrists are going to have a tremendous case study to figure out what in the world happened with this vaccine. When it came out, it looked like it was rushed. It didn't look too good. The mechanism action didn't look too good. It turns out it doesn't work. And now it's not safe, but yet it's being weaponized and the public is caught in this world wind of things is breaking apart aamilies, people are just doing awful things to one another all around a flawed vaccine.
Erik Johnson:Thank you very much. This has been a fascinating interview. And I hope everybody takes your words to heart. This has been absolutely fantastic. Thank you.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well, thanks for having me.
Alicia Swamy:Yeah, I do have a few more questions. I really want to, you know, milk this hour with you because I know that we won't be able to have the opportunity again. But why is this not on the news? You know, I live in in Scottsdale, I drive on the freeway out here, I see these freeway signs that say stop COVID-19 in its tracks get vaccinated, or you have our President Biden saying that he hopes to get 70% of the population vaccinated by July. And like you said, these million dollar raffles, these free foods and beer that they're offering. Is it legal for them to do this? Or is it illegal in a sense for them to kind of do like these segregation type things like here vaccinated unvaccinated? Can they force people to have to get these vaccines to go to school to go to work? Like this is menacing to me.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well, the CDC says the CDC and the FDA are the sponsors of the program, they say that the vaccines cannot be mandated. They state that okay, so that's being used in all the cases against the the menacing entities the you know, the entities that are attempting to take the vaccines and make them mandatory, Keep in mind the vaccines are investigational, that means research. So when people sign up for the vaccines, they are signing up as research subjects, we cannot force people into research studies if they don't want to. And we know we certainly can't force people who were never included in the original studies. So women of childbearing potential, pregnant women, COVID recovered, suspected COVID covered, those with positive antibodies All those groups, there are no data to suggest safety or efficacy, there's no way they could be forced to take the vaccine, certainly from a good clinical practice perspective. So what we're seeing is we're seeing a practice that by any pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal, and all that's happening, that's a violation of medical ethics is called the Nuremberg Code, number one. So we're seeing violations of medical ethics. So at the bare minimum, you know, Houston Methodist and Brigham and Women's and the 9% of colleges that are, you know, very ill conceived vaccine mandate programs, those are violations of medical ethics. Almost all of those programs, by the way, there's no policy written. And these are institutions that have policies for all their major actions. So if there's no policies written, but yet they're quote, forcing the workers to go into research, by definition, that is harassment, and that when they have a bad outcome with this vaccine, that's personal injury. So that's kind of the legal standards that are being used right now. So right now, it's unethical. Of course, it's immoral to force a dangerous substance, for instance, on a vulnerable person, like a fetus and a pregnant woman, or is immoral to threaten fertility in a woman of childbearing age, okay. And then from a clinical and civil perspective, it is illegal, it is illegal, and just the illegal nature of it means that just these cases alone will have civil penalties levered against, you know, any of these age, these entities that in a very ill advised way, are overreaching. They're taking something that the government says is the elective, the government themselves, the government agencies, they're not taking the vaccine. So why would Indiana University for instance, force the vaccine on the children? Why would Houston Methodist force it on all their employees? That clearly something is in the minds of these leaders that's distorted, that's very bizarre and nefarious honestly, it's just it boils down to just nefarious, it's evil. This type of approach is absolutely positively unjustified, it's medically unsound. You know that the lead plaintiff for the Houston Methodist case is a frontline worker. She's a nurse, she's already had COVID-19. She's completely immune, she has proof of her infection. She has complete immunity. There's not a single study that shows a COVID recover patient is at any risk for COVID-19. And all we know is if she takes the vaccine three studies show she has a higher risk of severe reactions, including hospitalization and death. How in the world can Houston Methodist try to force that vaccine on that worker? I think what you're gonna see is you certainly see the legal cases. But in the end, what's going to happen is people are going to show up, the students are going to show up and say, yeah, screw it. I'm gonna show up anyway, what are you going to do about it? Oh, we're gonna kick you off campus. No you're not. You know what I mean? You can't do that. So bottom line is people are just going to show up people are going to get on airplanes. They're going to get on trains and this this whole past mandate things gonna break down. The Delta, the Delta variant is making a mockery of the vaccine. The 42% of all the COVID cases are vaccinated partially vaccinated people in Edinburgh, Scotland right now, that's a joke. Same thing in Israel. So the vaccines are just absolutely a flawed concept. They've been taken to some type of sociological weapon. I think everybody should back off right now. And the public should speak out. People should not be afraid of peppering the inboxes of every single Congressman and Senator, every single board member, you know, there are parents, there's only 9% of universities that are mandating these vaccines. Parents are going to transfer their kids out. Kids transfer colleges all the time. And though people are going to pull up their philanthropy dollars. So I think people have to be willing to say that, you know, the college that I went to I'm alma mater, I have an endowed scholarship. If they ever thought about mandating the vaccine, I pulled that scholarship in a heartbeat. And I'm telling you, the institutions need to know that the public means business. Very, very important. The public means business. In Texas, we have a executive order in early April says you can even ask somebody about their best vaccine status. You cannot discriminate against vaccine status. You must recognize natural immunity, and you absolutely positively cannot force the vaccine in any way in any Texas related government institution, really strong. And they have that and several other states as well. Right now in Pennsylvania is coming up and governor says is going to be taught but it's been proposed as legislation. And I think the government governor is going to get absolutely pounded into oblivion if he doesn't support it. Listen, Americans don't want this passport system. They don't want it. I don't know a single person who wants it.
Erik Johnson:I hate to detract from your message by going back to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome because it seems like that's long in the past settled and over. But actually, the reason why the CDC gave it this stupid name is because they were fully aware of the immune abnormalities, the viral activation, all the things I've mentioned. They were actually commissioned to trivialize this to reduce the scare of this outbreak. And in all the years since nobody has revisited this evidence to find out what the CDC did.
Dr. Peter McCullough:While many have said, including Dr. Bhattacharya who's on Fox News he's a regular contributor from Stanford as I am. That we really lost our trust in the public agencies. At this point in time, many are going to say, listen, that trust is not coming back for a long time. The CDC is everything they've done has been erosive. The National Institutes of Health erosive and just frankly, inept, the ineptitude is extraordinary. I mean, I'll give you an example, today I did entries in the VAER system of people with bonafide vaccine injuries. Do you know that the VAER system does not even have a drop down box to see if they've previously had COVID? They're not even keeping track of who has natural immunity and who doesn't. The ineptitude is extraordinary at that level, so when they they you know, when they're rolling this out, they have the biggest biological vaccine disaster in human history. They don't even have the right data capture. And they haven't once gone to the public and reviewed the safety data. Not once! You think they'd have an update and say, listen, we have a brand new program and we want to share with you what we've learned so far, and just lay out the numbers. No, in fact, the numbers are suppressed by intention. There's something called the trusted news initiative in December, where all the media has decided that they are going to squelch anything on early treatment, anything on vaccine safety, and just promote blindly promote the vaccine, to go get the vaccine that's called trusted news service. Everybody's participating in it except for Fox News. So that's the reason why that you know, the true scientific contributors are basically on Fox at multiple different levels. And we know the independent media, like your communication system is bringing people the truth, and America is really seeking truth at this point in time. Because they know they're being snowed on this. They absolutely know it. Can you imagine 6,000 Americans certified by the CDC have died within days two or three or four the vaccine, and the government agencies are just fronting this as a safe vaccine? Everybody knows it's not safe, everybody knows. I mean, this is the you know, everybody's talking. Everybody knows that the federal government right now they're knee deep in a disaster. And I think that you know, the smartest thing, the safest thing to do is shut it down right now. It's not working, shut it down and then clean house, and somebody's gonna have to be held to blame or multiple people have to be held to blame for what has been just an absolute disaster. They shut down the swine flu program after 25 deaths and went up to close to 50 after they shut it down and about 500 cases again. How are they going to explain to America right now 6000 deaths and 20,000 hospitalizations, 300,000 safety reports? How do you explain that? I mean, we haven't fully vaccinated even half the population. It's an unqualified disaster.
Alicia Swamy:I had just one last question for you, if I may. So I haven't been vaccinated, neither has Erik or Kealy, or my entire family. Now, are we at risk being around those that are vaccinated?
Dr. Peter McCullough:Oh, people have asked about shedding and we do know now the spike protein circulates, the Chinese have done some data on the virus that's been helpful to us. So it is a reasonable conclusion that the spike protein in a vaccinated person for two weeks after the vaccine does circulate in the bloodstream and body fluids. And so therefore, the spike protein would be shed in close contact with others. Okay, that's a reasonable conclusion. And there's been plenty of reports where like, let's say four girls that are in a dorm room, and one of them gets a vaccine and the others their periods are affected would have I think that's, that's quite tractable. We have some direct shedding vignettes in the VAER system. And these been read to the public on the ingram angle by Dr. Harvey Risch, but they're really, really disturbing. So a woman who's breastfeeding in a very ill advised manner takes the vaccine, and then she delivers through the breast milk, presumptively, the spike protein, it kills the baby, this type of thing. So of course, a woman who's pregnant should know I mean they're not drinking any alcohol or smoking, they should not take an injection of unproven genetic material during pregnancy, and they certainly shouldn't when they're breastfeed. So the women themselves have to kind of wake up out of their trance and realize, wait a minute, let me not do something unwise. Now, people who choose not to take the vaccine, that's perfectly fine. We can treat COVID-19 all the way through, we're at the point where the vaccines are sufficiently shown to be unsafe, that really almost no one needs to take the vaccine at this point. And the risk benefit relationship isn't there. If you have COVID-19 and you're under you're under age 50. We typically don't treat it outside of nutraceuticals. It's only over age 50 with medical problems or younger people who present with severe symptoms that we treat, but it's not accepted. I think there's been a capitulation, it's very treatable. Patients can go to myfreedoctor.com, it's a charity service. They give the signs and symptoms, the COVID test results. The drugs are called into them or they can be sent to a mail order pharmacy patients are treated across the United States now. It's a wonderful service that works by charities so people make donations. But no billing insurance or anything else. Myfreedoctor.com has saved 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of lives. And there's other ones speakwithanmd.com there's about four national telemedicine services, but 15 regional services, they saved America.
Erik Johnson:It seems incomprehensible but the CDC and NIH are unable to even discuss some of these in a reasonable manner. And I've had enough contact with them to know that these are not stupid people, and I often feel that they're actually hiding behind an appearance of feigned ineptitude, when they fully understand what they're doing.
Dr. Peter McCullough:Well, I had a presentation with key advisors in Washington this weekend. And they're using the word overwhelmed or overwhelmed slash inept. And they do use inept I mean, it is true all the CDC and NIH officials, none of them have any qualifications to handle this. Many have never seen a COVID-19 patient, they're not even appropriately board certified in their fields and published in their fields. So ineptitude does play a role. You know, it's not like anybody you see on TV from the CDC, NIH or really any of the media doctors outside of the key people you'll see on one station, that they're even qualified to opine on this. This became very evident during the first senate hearings, where myself and George Fareed were together, we had probably treated over 1000 patients at that time. And Harvey Risch was clearly an evidence based cholar, where we were the ajority witnesses and our m nority witness was from Brown U iversity. He was the Dean of C ngress and he was opining an advising America for two ours on the treatment of COV D-19. Of course, his conc usions, always down to don't tr at it. And then finally, Senator Johnson asked him, he said, yo know, doctor, have you ever se n a COVID patient? Have you ever treated a COVID patient? An then he very sheepishly said, o, I haven't. And then the inte net just exploded. This gu's a fraud. Well, it's true t at you know, the NIH and CDC, one of them I don't think I've e er seen a COVID patient. The wouldn't even know what it' like. I mean, people are s ill dialing in for WebEx. I wa on the FDA call for the myoca ditis disaster that's ha pening in young people being vaccinated. And there was not single qualified person o that call, not a single cardi logist, they didn't have the ight blood tests, they didn t have the EKG. So I think inept tude plays a role.
Alicia Swamy:Thank you so much for joining us today. And thank you Dr. McCullough, for provid ng us with information during th se very, very interesting tim s, please like, share, comment nd subscribe to our content. Al o, feel free to rate our podcas. We are located on every sing e podcasting platform, so fe l free to check us out ther. Also, check out our GoFundMe a d Patreon pages to keep th s podcast running. Thank you aga n and we'll see you next tim