Dr. McCullough is profoundly disturbed about government's rush to vaccinate the entire population,
including those who are immune and not at high risk.
Dr. McCullough has stated that he cannot recommend the COVID19 vaccines, based on all current safety data.
Dr. McCullough thanks very much for joining us. Thanks for having me.
Q: Look, the Victorian government commissioned a paper published in October 2020
entitled "Antibody Dependent Enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Therapies".
Can you explain in simple terms the main issue raised by this paper?
A: Well, I think the public needs to understand that doctors,
for a long time now, have been concerned about vaccines backfiring.
And, when I mean backfiring, vaccines should protect individuals from the disease.
But it's possible, the way the vaccines work,
that they could cause certain biological facts in the body, to actually make the the virus or a pathogen,
to make it actually cause a more serious infection than just not having a vaccine at all. So it's a form of backfiring.
Q: Is Antibody Dependent Enhancement, or ADE, relevant only to mRNA vaccines?
And all the COVID19 vaccines currently available, mRNA vaccines?
A: No, the mRNA vaccines are the Pfizer and Moderna ones, that are available in the US.
And then there are adenoviral vector vaccines, which are Astrazeneca and Johnson&Johnson vaccines worldwide.
There are two different mechanisms. They all ultimately have the body produce the original Wuhan spike protein.
I think this is important for the listeners to understand. These vaccines uniquely make the body cause the dangerous part of the virus.
And it's now known that the spike protein circulates in the human body for two weeks after injection.
It's the spike protein that causes damage to blood vessels, causes blood clotting, damages the brain,
the heart, the liver, the kidneys, the placenta, with a spike protein we believe passes through breast milk.
And so it's just a unique aspect to the vaccine. The vast majority of vaccines we use are inactive, meaning that nothing circulates that's actually damaging to the body.
In the case of COVID19, vaccines were directly causing the body to make a biologically active substance,
and that substance circulates and damages the body. The hope is that it would create some immunity to COVID19.
Q: So, who's at risk then from COVID19 vaccines?
A: Well, right off the bat, there's a great concern that patients who have already had COVID19,
so their bodies actually already seen the virus, indeed would have a problem in getting the vaccine.
That, in a sense, the body would hyper react to again producing the spike protein, and indeed that's the case.
There are two papers, one out of Newcastle, the other one out of Manchester (UK), and then one out of New york (in the US).
And in those studies, about 25% to 30% of patients who volunteer for vaccination are doing it needlessly,
they've had COVID19 so they already have complete immunity. There's no reason for them to get vaccinated.
But, under the ill advised suggestions of government agencies, they received the vaccine and,
in fact, they've had 2 to 3 fold increased risk of adverse events.
Q: Since this paper was produced, what new data or evidence has now become available?
A: It's been shown in studies from Israel and France, and I've seen it my clinical practice as well.
After the first injection, of the two injections of either Pfizer and Moderna,
that patients have an increased risk of developing COVID19. In fact, they contract the virus.
We prove it by identifying the antigen there. So it's not just a vaccine reaction.
It's in fact a real infection. And the expert opinions, that we have obtained from immunologists and virologists,
is that this is antibody dependent enhancement. It's early on,
there's an immature library of antibodies directed against the Wuhan spike protein,
and the listener should understand the Wuhan spike protein is now extinct.
In the US we have 14 different variants, but the Wuhan China variant is gone now.
But the antibodies do rise to a very high level directed against that earlier version of the spike protein.
And, paradoxically, they help the next variant of COVID19
that's inhaled or acquired by contact, to come into the body and cause clinical infection.
So I think everybody receiving the vaccine should understand, the first of two vaccines,
they're temporarily at increased risk because of antibody dependent enhancement.
Q: What information should be made known as part of informed consent for vaccination?
A: I've looked at the american consent forms, are slightly different than australian,
but the american consent forms state that the vaccination program is completely elective, is optional.
That the products are investigational, meaning that they're still under research,
and that the side effects can range from just a mild reaction in the arm, all the way to death.
Now, when the package of the vaccine is opened, there's no package insert. So there's no important safety information provided.
There is no clinical data provided to the individual. So, if one volunteers for the vaccine program, they have to understand that
it's very much like being part of a research program. It's a preliminary, and not much is known regarding the vaccine.
So in the US we have, the Centers for Disease Control has the vaccine event reporting system VAERS.
And through the CDC website, multiple times, they encourage the public as well as doctors to consult VAERS
in order to understand what side effects and risks are emerging with the vaccines.
Does the person getting the vaccine actually comprehend the risk?
Q: It would seem that there is a narrative very similar to a used car salesman,
except instead of the car that could very well break down, it's a vaccine that also could very well break down.
A: It's true that there's so little known about the vaccines. For instance, they were only studied for two months in duration.
So we have no idea if patients are protected beyond two months.
We do know from the registrational trials, that the rate in two months of getting COVID19,
whether patients received the vaccine or they received placebo, was less than 1%.
So, if we were kind of project out, we would anticipate that a vaccine program would have less than a 1% public health impact.
I. E., patients who seek the vaccine have less than 1% chance of ever coming in contact with COVID19.
Q: Why governments now targeting children for COVID19 vaccination?
And can you explain the risk to this group, against the benefits?
A: It's important for the listeners to understand that we use vaccination in clinical practice.
And so I'm very favorable towards vaccines. I've always used vaccines in my clinical practice,
there're now about 70 of them on the market, the ones that are safe and effective we use according to our guidelines.
But we vaccinate children in order to protect a child from a disease.
So a child would be vaccinated, let's say against chicken pox, so they don't themselves develop chickenpox, or chickenpox pneumonia.
We vaccinate college children in the US against meningococcus to protect them from meningitis while being at college.
So vaccine is always to protect the child. With COVID19 children have a very mild illness.
Many of them don't even realize that they've had COVID19. So we actually have large fractions of children in the US that are immune.
They've already had the natural infection. And so a vaccine that would try to protect a child
from basically having a cold wouldn't make any sense, particularly if the vaccine had any risk to it.
My concern is that the stakeholders who are advancing mass vaccination, that includes the pharmaceutical companies in the US,
the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, in the US FDA, in Australia may be the TGA,
that these vaccine stakeholders have a different idea. And that their idea is that they're going to vaccinate children in order to protect adults.
And so that really violates a principle of medical ethics.
We would never ask a child to take on the risk of an investigational product, in order to protect another individual.
We've seen some gross examples of this in the US. For instance,
there's some universities that are going to mandate that the students get the COVID19 vaccine, but the faculty do not have to get it.
Of interest the vaccine stakeholders in the US, the government agencies CDC, FDA, and NIH, are not going to require their employees to get the COVID19 vaccines.
So how could a private employer in the US ever coerce or force their employees to take an investigational vaccine?
Q: In Queensland, our premier, which is similar to a governor, and our chief medical officer,
promoting Astrazeneca here, and take the vaccine, and all that sort of stuff anyway,
came out the other day that they haven't yet had the vaccine. So it's a bit worrying, isn't it?
When you've got the government saying, "You must take the vaccine!",
and yet the government who's saying take the vaccine won't take it themselves.
Look, in some countries children after a certain age can be vaccinated without parental consent.
Is this unusual? And is there any justification for this?
A: It's highly unusual. In North Carolina they just laid the groundwork for children, aged 12 and above,
to be able to consent and take the vaccine on their own, without parental consent.
They plan to move vaccination centers into the school, and apply pressure and coercion to the students.
That is telling them they can't participate in sports or activities, they can't have a normal life as a student,
unless they consent to having the vaccine. The vaccine has the risks including death.
And I can't imagine that a child age 13 is going to be confronted with a consent form, for an investigational new product in a consent for research,
and then face the possibility of death, and have to do it on their own, without the parents weighing in on this.
I'm highly concerned as a parent, I'm highly concerned as an American,
and as a citizen of the world right now, that's something very wrong is going on.
Parents ought to be absolutely screaming at the top of their lungs about this, that we never do this. We never ever do this.
We strictly excluded pregnant women from receiving the vaccine. We never inject pregnant women with a dangerous biologic substance.
And yet, when the vaccine was rolled out, the government agency said, "Pregnant women come on in, we'll vaccinate you!".
In fact pregnant women have and they've really paid the price, with abortions and miscarriages.
Q: Well, you have some greater inspiration there, heading out information there,
such as a president really doesn't know where he is, and you got Fauci who doesn't know who he works for.
You extended an invitation, back in March, to australian authorities and the TGA to help them.
Now, what was their response? I'm sure it was a fairly deafening NO.
A: The TGA has produced guidance on the treatment of COVID19. It is simply a series of negative statements, telling what not to do.
And in the end, the neck conclusion be not to treat Australians for COVID19.
Just let them suffer at home, to the point where they can't breathe, and then become hospitalized, and in fact many will die at that stage.
It's unthinkable what government agencies are doing right now. But the term to be applied is what's called malfeasance.
Malfeasance is wrongdoing by those in authority. In my view the government agencies, these are staffers,
these are people who don't see and examine patients, they don't have a fiduciary relationship,
they don't have malpractice, concerns to ever deal with that. They really need to get out of medicine right now.
Let doctors use the published literature. I've provided guidance and two sets of papers now, that's why they're used across the world.
We combine drugs that have signals of benefit, acceptable safety into regiments,
and we've demonstrated that we can reduce hospitalization and death by 85%, with early treatment of COVID19.
The government agencies have no role in opining on early treatment of COVID19. I think they really need to back out,
and worry about other issues, and honestly turn their attention towards cleaning up safety in the vaccination program.
Q: It's pretty amazing. They sort of dig their heels in, almost digging your heels in on steroids, and they become even more obstinate.
And as you, I think a while back, said in a recent interview with us, that they will be held accountable for crimes against humanity.
Are countries such as Australia, UK, US, likely to change their vaccination strategies, as more data becomes available on the effects of vaccines?
A: I think so. I drive past our vaccine center every day, and I can tell you it's empty, and the word is out.
In the US we have about half of Americans have received at least one dose of the vaccine,
and virtually every American knows of somebody who either died or was hospitalized after the vaccine.
And the word is out now, you can't really motivate americans.
And the desperation among the vaccine stakeholders is extraordinary. I talked about moving vaccine centres into schools.
Keep in mind that the vaccine centers that exist right now are empty, so to move them into the schools is almost an invasion.
They're planning to move vaccination centers into churches, just a few miles away from where they exist right now.
There's been offerings, for instance, there's been lotteries up to $1 million, if someone will take a vaccine they can be in a lottery for $1 million.
If a college student will take a vaccine, they're offering lotteries for them to win a full college scholarship, as an example.
And this is such an exaggeration of what's going on right now. Think about this.
The idea is, you want to take a chance with your life, we'll offer you $1 million if you'll go for it.
This is supreme coercion. And and the principle number one of the Nuremberg code, that came out of World War II,
is that individuals decide what gets injected into their bodies, free of pressure, coercion, and fear of reprisal.
Well, let me tell you, a lottery for $1 million is a form of coercion.
We had a hospital in Texas that was offering $500 to low-income workers to take the vaccine, and they wouldn't take it.
And then the administrator said, "Well, now we're going to force the vaccine on you!".
They said, "We still don't want to take it, we don't think it's safe!".
And then the next day the administration said, "We're going to start firing you!".
So in fact, workers started getting fired from the hospital, and now they're organizing into a giant lawsuit.
I can tell you those are forms of coercion. They are outlawed by Investigational Review Boards,
if this was a research study that was applied to an IRB, it would not be approved if there was a $500 coercion.
I can't imagine a raffle for $1 million. I think historians are going to look back on this,
and they're gonna look at these examples, and say how distorted things had become.
A vaccine that doesn't stop the virus a 100%. In US we've already had 10000 vaccine failures,
people getting sick and going into the hospital. So the vaccine clearly doesn't work for everyone.
And at the same time, we've had over 4000 deaths, over 12000 hospitalizations. In Europe there's already been over 10000 deaths.
And now we're offering a lottery to say, "Listen, if you take the chance, we'll pay you a 1$ million!".
Q: You mentioned the 1$ million, or the $500, you left out the most appealing,
say for example for me it was De Blasio when he said, "We'll give you a bowl of chips or fries to get the vaccine!".
I mean, only a bowl of fries to risk your life? I mean, that's a pretty poor incentive, isn't it?
A: It's amazing that any incentive has to be offered at all. The stakeholders have used the phrase, "A needle in every arm!".
Well, I can tell you a needle in every arm is not going to happen. In America, now,
you can't convince somebody who's already lost a loved one due to the vaccine, I don't care what.
And I can tell you, in clinical practice about 70% of my patients have received the vaccine.
I'm an internal medicine and cardiology doctor, I see patients every day, and initially, based on the original studies, I was encouraging the vaccine.
So most of them got the vaccine in December, January, and February.
But, based on the totality of data at this point in time, I could no longer recommend the vaccine.
So we're at about 70% in adult medicine, which is probably appropriate. Thankfully, I've never lost a patient due to the vaccine,
but I've had family members of my patients who clearly have died as a direct result of the vaccine.
And they're angry, they're regretful, and they want answers.
Q: Some very interesting days ahead though, with responsibilities and accountability,
because as the truth comes out and people realize that this is
they've had the wool pulled over their eyes, and the health put in in great jeopardy.
I'm sure there are more interesting turns, and curveballs in the future. Dr. Peter McCullough, thank you very much.