July 10, 2023 • 63 mins
Prepare yourself for an insightful journey with the country's leading figure in COVID research and treatment, Dr. Peter McCullough. His breadth of knowledge and experience from serving as an expert witness for the Senate House Health and Human Services Committee to his over 685 publications in the National Library of Medicine will leave you captivated as we explore the complex landscape of the COVID pandemic.
Thread the needle with us on a discussion on COVID-19 treatment options and possible risks. We’ll examine drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fomotidine and more, and scrutinize the potentially life-saving McCulloch Protocol. We also delve into the peculiar incentives of Health and Human Services countermeasure funding, the possible pitfalls of over testing, and the dubious use of the term 'asymptomatic' in describing COVID-19.
Finally, we'll dare to uncover the mystery surrounding the origins of the virus, and the potential role of the US government in its creation. Could the virus have been engineered as part of a project by the US and operationalized by the Chinese? What part do organizations like the World Economic Forum and the biopharmaceutical complex play in the conspiracy theory of population reduction tools? Get ready for an episode filled with rich insights, disturbing revelations, and a journey into the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thread the needle with us on a discussion on COVID-19 treatment options and possible risks. We’ll examine drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fomotidine and more, and scrutinize the potentially life-saving McCulloch Protocol. We also delve into the peculiar incentives of Health and Human Services countermeasure funding, the possible pitfalls of over testing, and the dubious use of the term 'asymptomatic' in describing COVID-19.
Finally, we'll dare to uncover the mystery surrounding the origins of the virus, and the potential role of the US government in its creation. Could the virus have been engineered as part of a project by the US and operationalized by the Chinese? What part do organizations like the World Economic Forum and the biopharmaceutical complex play in the conspiracy theory of population reduction tools? Get ready for an episode filled with rich insights, disturbing revelations, and a journey into the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Discovering the truth of COVID-19 with Dr Peter
McCullough, america's leadingexpert on all things COVID and
the damage done.
If you're listening to The LastGay Conservative, i'm your host
.
Chad Law Worship every inchyour feet have touched.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Baby, run away with me.
You kill lonely.
You make my eyes all see, ohcrazy.
You make my heart believe.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Hello America, we want to hear from you.
866-last-gaay, 866-last-gaay,866-last-gaay.
Send us a text, leave a messageon the message line and surely
you'll hear back from us or I'llbring it up on the air.
Don't be shy, people.
I love to hear from you.
(01:19):
So welcome to another episodeof The Last Gay Conservative.
For those of you who don't know, my name is Chad Law, america's
binary brother, the holiesthomo of all time and the
ultimate beacon of truth sendingcommon sense, conservative
politics on the airwaves, theonly rainbow that matters the
red, white and blue rainbow.
Well, it's been quite a week.
I see all of you enjoy theinterview with Heather Guessling
(01:42):
from the Wellness Company.
I've been really on a healthkick lately, so I've been trying
to give you guys as muchinformation now post vaccine as
possible.
A lot of vaccine injured peoplecoming out of the woodwork and
want to make sure that we haveall the information we need in
order to make the correctdecision.
I also think it's veryimportant to understand where
all this COVID stuff came fromand why it was so bad and what
(02:05):
has happened, because we'recoming up on a very important
election and you will need tounderstand what the democratic
regime did in order to interferein our lives and essentially
shut down our entire way of life, government business for two
years.
It was evil, what was done andthere was no care or treatment
(02:27):
provided.
So I decided I would startbringing in the best experts in
the country, and I certainly did.
Today I'm interviewing Dr PeterMcCullough Maybe you've seen him
.
He has been the expert witnessfor the Senate House Health and
Human Services Committee.
He's been an expert witness forthe Texas Senate.
He's been an expert witness forthe House of Representatives,
(02:48):
the federal government.
He's also a board certifiedcardiologist and internist and
one of the first people thatsaid wait a minute, i get COVID.
But how come we're not treatingany of these patients?
How come we're not trying toprotect them from going to the
hospital?
Because once they go to thehospital the mortality rate
skyrockets.
(03:08):
So he created the McCulloughProtocol, which is a protocol on
how doctors could treatpatients with COVID to keep them
from going to the hospital.
He has a multitude of awards,published papers, documented
proof and so much data.
Even the liberal media can'tspin it in their favor.
Dr Peter McCullough is theleading expert on all things
(03:32):
COVID, all things COVID,vaccinations and I am very
blessed to have him on the show.
He's big time.
He's been on Joe Rogan.
He's constantly on Epoch News,newsmax Fox and he loves our
show and asked if he could do it, so we're very excited to have
him here.
Let's head to the last gayinterview studio now.
(03:54):
The following segment ispresented, commercial free, by
the wellness company, a new typeof healthcare governed and
operated with transparency, notpushed around by big pharma, and
focused on keeping you and yourfamily well.
They have a range ofsupplements that will make you
(04:14):
feel incredible, combined withtelemedicine from providers that
don't have an agenda.
Go to twchealth today andexperience what it's like to
have pure healthcare,uninfluenced by anything else.
Again, folks, twchealth, goonline, choose one of the two
memberships and see what it'slike to finally live your life
(04:37):
well.
All right, folks, we're here inthe last gay interview studio
with Dr Peter McCullough.
Dr McCullough, it looks likeyou are a Texan through and
through.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Well, like so many people, I moved down here when I
was a kid, but I do considermyself a Texan and it's been a
good state.
I grew up here, went to highschool here, undergraduate at
Baylor, then UT, southwesternMedical School in Dallas, but I
went off.
I went off to New York City,washington, in Seattle, for
(05:15):
residency, New York City inMichigan for graduate school,
rural health service and thenfellowship, and now I was
spending the last part of mycareer in Texas.
Glad to be back.
Lone Star State.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
So now, dr McCullough , your resume is seriously
impressive And without mereading every publication and
every award certification, couldyou just sum up for the
audience some of yourcredentials?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Well, i'm an academic internist and cardiologist so I
maintain my boardcertifications in both fields
And I've had a research interestthroughout my career of how
different organ systems relateto one another, particularly the
heart and the kidneys.
In that area I had a massed, aconsiderable publication base
(06:04):
worked in in vitro diagnostics.
Clinical trials and strategieshave been involved with the FDA,
a couple dozen data safetymonitoring boards.
I've been the overall principalinvestigator of large
randomized trials And then whenCOVID hit, i redirected my
research focus to the infectionbecause there's such an unmet
(06:24):
need.
It was a brand new illness.
Americans were beinghospitalized and dying and I
wanted to make a contributionthere to help as many people as
I could.
So I led the early treatmentefforts in the United States
academically with seminalpublications, and now I've
turned my attention to thesafety of the COVID-19 vaccine
(06:45):
program since that became such alarge issue worldwide Now, in
that I have over 685publications in the National
Library of Medicine cited, over70 in COVID As a reference point
.
It would take about 25 for afull professor of medicine to be
granted, so I've been veryactive.
(07:06):
I've been asked now on threeoccasions to testify in the US
Senate.
Two times I was theco-moderator and the lead and
testified in multiple statesenates.
Yesterday I gave a preparedpresentation for the European
Parliament.
So I think most people aroundthe world know me and they know
(07:27):
me for I think, a couple ofthings One in COVID being very
accurate and I cite theliterature in every instance And
also actually being correct onsome very important points that
change people's lives,particularly the need for early
(07:48):
treatment And, i have to say,parenthetically, in the last
several months I have renderedopinions on this explosive
transgender movement in medicine.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yeah, and it's incredible to see.
I've watched some of yourSenate testimony.
I've listened to some of yourinterviews And what I love about
what you do is just like yousaid, you're an academic and
everything you do is backed upby data.
You're not someone who reallythe anti-anti the people who are
(08:25):
trying to suppress informationlike what you deliver to the
public.
they can't really argue withyou because you have it there in
black and white And you'vebecome really the nation's
leading medical doctor that'scriticized.
the response to COVID and thevaccine rollout and
administration.
I've heard you talk aboutpharmaceutical overreach during
(08:48):
the pandemic.
What point at the beginning ofthis?
did you smell something fishy?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
I said from the very beginning that, watching this
unfold, that there are only twobad outcomes of COVID
Hospitalization and death.
That's it That if one was nothospitalized, one did not lose
their life, they could getthrough the illness.
And I didn't hear a singleleader articulate that problem.
(09:17):
We had two presidents.
They couldn't articulate theproblem.
Hhs secretaries, coronavirustask forces.
They were stating otherobjectives, slowing the spread,
you know, masking, socialdistancing, lockdowns.
They actually could notarticulate the problem.
So when we have leaders thatcan't articulate the problem,
(09:41):
our chances of success are goingto be low.
Because if the problem washospitalization and death, then
the strategy would be to dosomething to prevent
hospitalization and death, Thatis, treat the problem.
Treat the problem to reduce therisk of hospitalization and
death.
Now I recently read the book ACloud Over the White House by
(10:03):
Scott Atlas, And he met withTrump on a daily basis, him and
the COVID task force, Dr Fauci,Dr Bricks, Rear, Edmonds, Brett,
Gerard, Mark Meadows, Chief ofStaff, And I read every page of
his book.
Do you know?
not one time did they discusstreating COVID patients.
All they did was focus on masksand lockdowns and social
(10:28):
distancing, go over the data.
None of those things help asick patient.
To me, it's so obvious Take careof the sick patient.
Instead, they were just focusedon everything but the sick
patient.
And you know, when I got to theTexas Senate testimony in March
of 2021, I really lit a fire tothe Health and Human Services
(10:50):
Committee And I said everyone isso focused on the vaccine.
Where's the focus on sickpeople right now?
Well, you know, that ended uplanding me on Tucker Carlson And
Tucker said well, why arepeople focusing on the vaccine?
Why are they focusing ontreating the problem?
And so it kind of set Tucker ona two-year exploration into
(11:12):
this issue And ultimately, youknow, he lost his job over it.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
It's insane to me to think that you talk about the
cloud over the White House.
I've read paper after paper Andit's absolutely insane for me
to think that there was oneperson who was the face of the
pandemic.
any other time we've had anysort of medical rollout.
(11:39):
Even in the AIDS epidemic orpandemic in the 80s, there was
always some sort of panel.
Why do you think it all wasfouchy?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
You know, initially it was a White House task force.
I remember that.
You know seeing.
You know a couple of dozenpeople stand up on stage And I
was being very active at thetime.
You know White House contactedme, by the way, early in the
pandemic.
So did the US Senate.
So when I testified in the USSenate November 19, 2020, i said
listen, there needs to be fourteams, four pillars of pandemic
(12:15):
response.
Number one is a team working onreducing the spread of the
virus.
It turned out what worked wasusing virus-side nasal sprays
and gargles.
That was something that theWhite House never acknowledged.
Pillar number two team numbertwo was early treatment.
That would be me and all thedoctors in my circles, ones well
(12:36):
known to you, including thegroup that led the FLCC American
Frontline Doctors, now thegroup leading the wellness
company all well known earlytreatment experts.
Pillar number three was inhospital treatment.
We needed to hear improvementsand original research being done
in the hospital.
And then the last number fourwould be I focused on vaccines
(13:00):
for those at high risk, providedwe had a safer, effective
vaccine, and I had sketched thisout.
I had written a series of op-edsin the Hill, a journal for the
House and the Senate and theWhite House insiders in
Washington, and I sketched thisout, but I said probably 2.7
million would receive a vaccineif it was safe and effective,
(13:21):
probably no more than thatbecause it would be targeted.
And we didn't see a balancedapproach at all.
We didn't see any teamwork.
In fact, the White House taskforces basically melted away and
we ended up with one dictator,and that was Dr Anthony Fauci.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah.
Another question I wanted toask you was, as Four mentioned,
you're a very successfulcardiologist and internist.
Before COVID, were you abeliever in integrated care?
For example, you have thisincredible heart support
supplement, but I feel like mosttraditional or streamlined
(14:00):
doctors would probably prefer toprescribe a diuretic or a beta
blocker or do nothing until theactual disease presents itself.
How did you approach medicineprior to COVID?
Speaker 3 (14:14):
I'm a traditional allopathic physician, largely
doing all the in vitrodiagnostics, imaging and then
various forms of prescriptiontherapy.
Now I did publish a few papersabout nutraceuticals and
supplements for heart diseasefor those who've had bariatric
(14:36):
surgery.
So I had a, i would say, amodest interest in that area.
And what's in the wellnesscompany heart support supplement
, as an example is everything Iwould recommend to my patients,
which I have for 20 years anyway, including selenium and
L-carnitine, d-ribose, coenzymeQ10, et cetera, and N-B vitamins
(14:59):
.
It's because, in the setting ofa weakened heart pump, for
instance, deficiencies of any ofthose actually cause
form-fruits heart failure, likeberry berry as an example.
So we had, i want to say, thoseprinciples in allopathic
medicine, but by no stretch ofthe imagination was my practice
(15:23):
holistic or integrative, andthat's really changed since the
pandemic.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
And we talk about deep prescribing from the
wellness company, about the deepprescribing and about medical
choice and removingpharmaceuticals.
But then, when we talk aboutthe treatment of COVID, one of
the treatments that comes up alot is the hydrochloroquine and
ivermectin, which aretechnically traditional
pharmaceuticals that have beenused to treat a lot of diseases.
(15:52):
Have you used those in the pastfor viruses?
Speaker 3 (15:57):
I've never used them for viruses.
but boy, i prescribed a lot ofhydroxylchloroquine for systemic
lupus, for rheumatoid arthritis.
I mean back in the day when Idid my training at University of
Washington in Seattle, ourrheumatology clinic at Pacific
Medical Center, i mean we sawwhat we did back then.
It was branded plaquino.
We had prescribed a red and aplaquino.
(16:17):
Now ivermectin, i had used itoccasionally for widespread
scabies.
I had never encountered apatient with river blindness,
but ivermectin certainly hadused that before.
None of those were appliedagainst viral infections Viral
infections.
in the past we would usevarious forms of antiviral.
(16:42):
So for instance Ganscyclovirwith cytomegalovirus, acyclovir
and Valacyclovir for herpessimplex as an example.
We would use Old Temavir, whichis Tamiflu, for influenza.
Now there's a modern version ofthat.
And of course we usedantivirals in a combination
(17:05):
called HEART or highly activeretroviral therapy for HIV.
But I had never used theoff-label drugs to treat the
virus.
Now we certainly found withCOVID hydroxychloroquine had
antiviral properties.
We found that ivermectin did,believe it or not, as
zithromycin.
there was about half a dozenstudies suggesting it also had
(17:27):
some modest in vitro activity.
So did doxycycline And then,importantly, fomotidine.
I think Fomotidine was probablythe biggest surprise, that's
pepsid.
Yeah, I was just saying, I thinkI take that, Yeah, pepsid is
interesting that the SARS-CoV-2virus has two ways it gets into
(17:48):
cells.
One is through the ACE2receptor which is on the surface
of the cell, And then there'swhat's called the Tempris-2,
which is on the basolateral partof the respiratory epithelial
cell.
And there's two ways the virusgets in.
Fomotidine blocks the Tempris-2receptor.
It also reduces inflammation.
(18:09):
It's an antihistamine and acid.
But we found that we needed touse four times the normal dose,
which was 80 milligrams a day.
But I think Fomotidine, out ofall the drugs, was the biggest
surprise.
You know there was a 20,000person study by MIRA and
colleagues at University ofVirginia showing those who were
lucky enough to get Fomotidine,or they knew about it, had about
(18:31):
a 45% reduction in the risk ofhospitalization, death or need
for the mechanical ventilator.
That's with a simpleover-the-counter medicine.
And so in the McCullochprotocol it was always about
four to six drugs in combinationAnd I ended up treating
patients in their 90s, peoplewith heart failure, emphysema,
patients with low oxygensaturation.
We managed it all at home andgot people through it without
(18:54):
being hospitalized.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Wow, because what I wanted to know is because
there's so many people that werelike oh my god, you know this
is don't, you can't doivermectin, hydrochloroquine or
any of the other quote unquotealternative, even though they're
not alternative.
And my response and my questionI didn't have an answer at the
time, i still don't but is whatis the absolute worst that can
(19:15):
happen if you do treat thisperson and they have COVID and
they don't respond to thattreatment.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Well, it would be the same thing that would happen to
those who got no treatment issome people would get worse, to
the point where they're souncomfortable they can't breathe
or getting dehydrated that theywould have to be hospitalized.
So there was no risk at all,because the worst thing that
would happen is that peoplewould not get treatment and they
(19:43):
would end up being hospitalized.
So there was no downside to it.
There was only an upside.
We know how to prescribe bothdrugs hydroxychloroquine,
ivermectin.
We also know how to prescribeFomotidine, by the way, used to
be prescription.
So we know how to prescribethese drugs.
We know the typical safetycaveats.
I'll give you an examplehydroxychloroquine In an
(20:04):
African-American person with agenetic problem called G6PD
deficiency can cause a hemolyticanemia.
Well, we know that and we takecaution.
Patients on certain cardiacdrugs or can be interactions was
called prolonging the QTinterval.
I think we know that.
Ivermectin patients withseizures we know about the
seizure threshold as an example.
Clearly, people with allergiesto either one of those With
(20:27):
Fomotidine it's the same thingPeople with an allergy to it are
intolerance.
So doctors know how toprescribe drugs.
So that was never the problem.
The problem in this case waswhat we call therapeutic nealism
is that doctors wereprescribing no drugs.
They were telling the patientdon't take any medicine
whatsoever and then wait untilyou're sick enough and then go
(20:50):
into the hospital.
That recommendation was adisaster.
That was the original NIHrecommendation and it was
terrible.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Yeah, i don't know if it was a placebo effect for me,
but one of the things that Iimmediately did when I got COVID
was start having, like Myerscocktail bags intravenously and
intravenous vitamin C Instead ofthe 10-day window.
I was over it in about threeand a half days and felt much
better than some of mycolleagues and people that work
(21:21):
for me.
That is something that I did onmy own, as my own advocate, but
it was very frustrating to seefriends and family who just were
so scared to do anything butsit in bed and cough for 10 days
.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
I know, and what we learned is, doing something was
so much better than doingnothing.
Turns out that the Myerscocktails, various forms of IVs.
They help because people areprone to getting dehydrated.
When someone gets dehydrated,they get nauseated.
Then when they get nauseated,they don't drink enough fluid
and then they get even moredehydrated.
(21:58):
What breaks that cycle is theIVs.
The IVs, it turns out somenurses that really were fearless
.
They started home nursingservices and they would go out,
and I would have them go out topatients' houses and give an IV
of Myers cocktail and, let's say, a leader of ringer lactate or
normal saline.
We were able to give monoclonalantibodies, which are always
(22:22):
safe and effective, believe itor not.
We learned that vitamin C, ifgiven in high enough doses, also
had an antiviral effect.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
You talk about the monoclonal antibodies and we
heard that a little bit.
It got swept under the rug.
Obviously, COVID is still out.
There Are those available stillto use.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
No.
Monoclonal antibodies are nowall taken off the market.
Each one only lasted a fewmonths on the market.
They were always safe andeffective.
It was the saddest thing thatpeople were hospitalized and
they never got a chance to getthe monoclonals.
Everybody should have gotten amonoclonal infusion when they
showed up to the ER.
Those who were admitted to thehospital and died, it's because
(23:10):
they didn't get monoclonalantibodies in the ER.
They didn't get ivermectin orother drugs we could safely use
in the hospital.
They basically died because ofunder treatment.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
One of the things that you talk about is
preventing people to get to thehospital.
I'm making the assumption herethat the reason why it's so
important to prevent patientsfrom getting to the hospital
with COVID is because themortality rate shoots up once
someone checks into the hospitalor gets on a respirator.
Now we see all kinds of datathat says most of those deaths
(23:42):
were also combined with diabetesor an immunodeficiency or any
other.
They weren't just straightCOVID deaths, but the hospitals
were so quick to rule them COVIDdeaths.
Do you know why that would be?
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Our CDC says that 10% of the deaths it was just COVID
, pneumonia.
90% of the deaths there wassome other contributing medical
problem.
You know obesity, diabetes,heart and lung disease, kidney
disease, cancer.
The Italian data are similar,actually 3%, just straight COVID
, 97% other contributors.
(24:21):
This is an important point.
That means a perfectly healthyperson with no medical problems
almost certainly was going tosurvive COVID And it was medical
problems that added on.
It was the sicker and frailpeople that really got in
trouble.
This helped us with riskstratification.
I remember early on.
You know what I said is peopleunder 50, no medical problems.
(24:44):
They actually don't need anytreatment at all.
They can just, you know, takecare of it like a common cold.
That was always in theMcCulloch protocol no treatment.
It was a large paper by mockeryand colleagues from Iran And I
was paying attention to whatother countries were doing.
They only treated 25% of theadults, those who are older who
had medical problems.
(25:04):
75% of people didn't need anytreatment.
So you know that's called riskstratification And you know what
we want people to understand isthat if there was no COVID,
those people who died 1.2million people died they'd
probably still be alive today.
Some would have died of othercauses over the next several
(25:26):
months or a few years, but COVIDrobbed them of it.
And you know, the other veinthat came out in this is that
there was over coding.
This was important.
So once somebody testedpositive for COVID, they were
going to intermittently testpositive for many months
afterwards Because the virus isstill alive and replicating
(25:50):
slowly in someone's body formany months afterwards.
So they're going to be PCRpositive.
So we'd see somebody, let's saya nursing home patient, come in
for COVID.
They would be treated, theywould be fine.
Six months later they'd come inwith a hip fracture and they
would test them again.
They say, oh, he's got COVIDagain, and so we'd be labeled a
COVID admission and actually dieof some complication after hip
(26:12):
fracture.
Well, that second admissionwasn't a COVID death, it was
really a hip fracture death withcomplications, and so that
actually worked to ramp up andoverestimate the number of COVID
deaths.
And as we sit here today, theUnited States is number one in
the world in declared COVIDdeaths.
Can you imagine that?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
And we're less than 5% of the world's population.
Wow Yeah, especially having itstart and spread rapidly through
China now multiple times youwould think that their mortality
rate would be much higher thanours.
but it's because, like you said, i guess, the overcoating.
I've also heard reports and I'mvery I try to stay away from
(26:54):
the crazy crackpot people, butI've heard reports that the
federal government issued like$20,000 to $30,000 for COVID
death in the hospital.
So they would label someone aCOVID death even though their
foot was already at the edge ofthe grave with diabetes or high
blood pressure or something, andCOVID kind of just pushed them
(27:15):
in.
Do you know of any of that?
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Yeah, I hasn't been in my area of study.
What I generally know is thatthe Health and Human Services
used what's calledcountermeasure funding and they
offered preferential payments tohospitals, even if people were
not on Medicare or have forms ofpayment.
So COVID itself was paid.
A use of a mechanicalventilator paid more.
(27:41):
Use of Remdesivir paid more,And if there was a mortality, in
fact they would be paid more.
Even the family received somemoney if there was a COVID
deaths.
So these are what's calledperverse incentives.
Hospitals were perverselyincentivized for these outcomes.
And you can imagine what if thehospitals were paid to keep
(28:01):
people alive or keep them out ofthe hospital.
We could have changed thecomplexion of the pandemic.
Perverse incentives are alwaysa bad thing.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Yeah, well, usually when you get money involved in
medicine, which there has to besome sort of privatization.
But when there's incentiveslike that and they don't
necessarily align with patientcare coming first, it sounds
like it's just a recipe forcorruption and fraud and over
(28:32):
coding and over billing and allof those things that can lead to
skew of the data.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Most of it came.
Most of it.
The entree to this was overtesting.
Now, the nasal and the oraltests were only FDA approved as
a diagnostic aid in someone'ssick suspected of having COVID.
The tests were never meant tobe used for people traveling,
people coming into the hospitalfor heart catheterizations or
(29:04):
normal labor and delivery orsurgeries.
The testing that was off-labeltesting was rampant And all it
did was raise more fear andconcerns, artificially elevate
the case count And it wasted amassive amount of money And the
FDA never said to do that.
The WHO in June of 2021 saidstop all this asymptomatic
(29:27):
testing.
They said don't do it And itwas.
Finally we got to the summer of2022 and the CDC said stop all
this asymptomatic testing.
But for the longest time,hospitals tested everybody for
no reason.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
I know.
I mean it was so crazy.
Here Stores had temperaturegauges And I actually think that
thermometer makes more sensethan asymptomatic testing,
because I'm almost 40.
I have lived through avariation of different flues or
whatnot.
I'm obviously gay, so I seepeople with HIV and AIDS quite
(30:07):
often And I think about thiswine flu, i think about SARS the
first time, the avian flu Noneof those flues and just the
regular seasonal flu.
I have never once heardasymptomatic combined with a flu
.
It's always had fever, cough,sneezing stomach, whatever.
(30:30):
So why all of a sudden did this?
I felt like the word just gotmade up.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Oh, that's a good point.
That's a good point, yeah.
So your point is well, there'sno such thing as asymptomatic
flu, right, i mean, it's eitheryou have the flu or you don't.
So this idea of asymptomaticCOVID was basically a construct
(31:00):
of modeling, of, in a sense,false academic modeling studies.
It was assumed that COVID couldbe spread asymptomatically, and
it couldn't.
There were two papers, one bycow, the other one by madewell,
that disproved asymptomaticspread.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
And that was one of the first times I was like
there's absolutely no waysomeone could be walking around
with COVID and not know it,because the people that I did
see that had it got pretty sicknot necessarily death or
hospitalization, but it was arough flu for about a week And I
just thought there's just noway that there's people walking
around freely just breathing oneveryone with COVID.
(31:40):
I'm not a doctor, but it seemedlike common sense to me.
And then when they startedusing that term over and over
again, especially to justify thevaccine because people are like
, well, i live at home, i hardlyleave the house, i don't
necessarily need the vaccineThey say oh no, anyone you meet
could be asymptomatic.
I thought it was just made up.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
It's true, it became a witch hunt.
Anybody could have it at anytime.
It didn't matter if you had itbefore, natural immunity didn't
count, you could have it again,you know, with it took the
vaccine, it didn't matter, youstill could get the virus.
So it became this miasma,basically an entire mess, and
(32:23):
what we need is we needed justclear, concise messaging.
That's what I did.
I went on national TV dozens,if not hundreds of times and I
consistently gave America themessage on risk stratification,
on spread of the virus, naturalimmunity, early treatment and
(32:44):
then, you know, concernsregarding the vaccines.
Over and over again, i becamebasically known for giving
America accurate and concise,correct information on the
pandemic.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Yeah, and not like I said in the beginning, what I
love about what you did and arestill doing is that you're such
an academic and you're sopublished and the way you think
is so data driven that when youget on national TV unlike some
of these other and I'm not someof these other anti-vaxxers, and
so it's like the left mediaautomatically shuts them down,
(33:21):
discredits them, disproves them,and they absolutely cannot do
that with you.
You've backed them in a cornerwith the right data And I think
what's so incredible is that youwere so ahead of the game and
it's not fast enough, but Ithink, slowly but surely, as
more data comes out, it's kindof catching up to what you've
(33:42):
been saying since 2019.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, what I've told people.
I've told major audiences youknow, stage programs and
elsewhere that I've given moremedia interviews like this one
today and I've given moreanalyses.
I've written more op-eds andput myself out there more than
anybody in the world And it'smore than Anthony Fauci, more
(34:09):
than anybody you can think of.
And the one thing I'vechallenged people is I've told
them you find where I've beenwrong, where I've been wrong on
something And or where I've beeninconsistent.
Now I've changed my view on afew of the aspects of the virus
(34:30):
because the virus is mutated.
But when we have the density ofmedia exposure I have, people
can see the truth.
The fact checkers gave up onthis.
These fact checkers areanonymous, uncredentialed people
just making false counterclaims.
They gave up because I justcite the information.
(34:53):
When I got to the point when Iwent on Joe Rogan, i set all the
records for his podcast stillto this day, a whole heavy
record he's ever done, and itwent all the way up to the White
House And I challengedeverybody.
I said listen, all I did wasshow Joe Rogan the data.
I showed the Spotify producersthe published studies.
I said I'll be happy to sitdown and talk about the data.
(35:13):
We'll just go over the studies.
Which one do you want to startwith?
Everyone's like no, we don'twant to really talk about it.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
Now let me ask you do you feel like because I knew
who you were and I know some ofthe more middle to right media
outlets were publishing you andspreading the news But do you
feel like you were suppressedduring a lot of this time?
Speaker 3 (35:43):
You know I am not a right winger or a left winger,
i'm an independent voter.
So I almost always vote forsome Republicans, some Democrats
.
I think to be an independentvoter you have to be stronger
than either one of the twoparties, because you actually
have to pick qualified people.
It's not tribal.
Some people who are Republicanvoters, they simply just pull
(36:07):
one lever for all the Republicancandidates And the same person
in Democrat would do the samething.
One has to be a lot stronger tobe an independent.
I've always been an independentand I've told all the media
people that It's interestingthat the right wing media
initially tended to gravitate alittle bit more to medical
(36:29):
freedom, but now they'vecompletely moved away.
So most right wing media hasalso turned what's called woke
Woke is this term that meansthey almost kind of lost their
minds on a whole variety ofissues and they turned woke.
Recently our Attorney General,ken Paxton in Texas, who was
(36:52):
going after Pfizer for vaccinefraud, american Board of
Internal Medicine for mysituation of COVID
misinformation policy and wasgoing after Texas children for
transgender surgeries in theyouth.
He was basically impeached byboth the right and the left.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
Well, i know why that is.
I mean you can look at theHealth and Human Services
Committee in the Senate and inthe House.
You can look at various waysand means.
There's so many committees andalmost at least one congressman
(37:31):
or senator had plays withinModerna Pfizer with their own
personal money because they werepre-briefed on the potential
size of the pandemic.
So they all got rich from thevaccine.
And of course they don't wantto have lawsuits because that'll
all go on the record.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Well, yeah, i wrote a book with John Leake and it's
called COVID-19, the global ofpredators.
We are the no, but in our bookwith John Leake, courage to Face
COVID-19, preventingHospitalizations and Deaths
(38:14):
while Battling theBiopharmaceutical Complex, we
identified a syndicate that hadformed a complex, and at the top
is the World Economic Forum,the World Health Organization,
the Gates Foundation,rockefeller Foundation, Welcome
Trust, cepi, coalition forEpidemic Preparedness and
Innovation formed by Gates andWEF, the major regulatory
(38:37):
agencies, the vaccine companies,and this syndicate basically
ran the table and they investedin one another and they made
extraordinary investments.
For instance, Bill Gatesinvested 55 million into
(39:04):
BioNTech, as an example, and hegot out over a billion.
So they invested in each otherand, again, a not-for-profit
company can do that.
They don't have to worry aboutSEC filings or conflict of
interest or any of these otherthings.
And so this went on.
So this syndicate, they ran thetable and they had incredible
(39:29):
power.
So, for instance, they held 36pandemic preparedness planning
events.
25 of them were written.
This occurred over a decade andsix of them were filmed.
Like Event 201 was filmed, andthis is fascinating.
Do you know that we had statesenators in Event 201, we had
(39:54):
our current director of NationalIntelligence, averal Haynes.
She was in Event 201, almostall the pandemic response
leaders, the CDC from China,director George Gao.
He was there And now that welearned that that was actually
an operational meeting, thevirus was already out the lab.
(40:14):
At that time It was spreadingaround Wuhan So these people
knew.
They knew ahead of time whatwas going on.
And to this day, averal Haynes,her scenario in Event 201 was
how were they going to deceivethe world if it came out of the
lab in Wuhan China?
Do you know?
right now she is not turningover the US documents on the
(40:36):
Wuhan lab And she's 10 days latepast her deadline.
Josh Howley wrote her a letterlast week and said listen,
declassify the documents.
She actually scenario plannedbeing in this situation because
the syndicate is all verytightly aligned to the World
Economic Forum.
They go to Davos every year andthey meet in the World Economic
(41:01):
Forum And they have beenscenario planning pandemics,
climate change, digital currencyconversion, et cetera.
You know this is in the open.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Yeah, i know it's amazing with the, with the, with
so much, how much is in theopen and how many Americans just
bury their head in the sand onboth sides?
You're absolutely right Nowabout the vaccine in particular.
The question I wanted to askyou is you know the mRNA vaccine
was really the bigger push, butI know J&J had one that was
(41:38):
non-MRNA.
It seemed like more of atraditional flu shot.
Do you see any differences interms of efficacy, safety,
long-term effects and thecardiomyopathy that we're seeing
?
Speaker 3 (41:51):
If we look at American adults, we know from
the COVID community statesprogram, which is more accurate
than what the CDC has, that 75%of Americans took at least one
shot.
That's the statistic.
Now, of those, 94% of it wasmessenger RNA And people have
always asked the vaccines wereall had tons of availability.
(42:16):
Why was it mainly Pfizer andModerna messenger RNA?
We found out thatPfizer-Moderna had a marketing
firm and still does callWeber-Shandwick.
They had an installed marketingunit in the CDC, in the CDC
offices, and Weber-Shandwickalso installed a marketing
program in corporate Americacalled Plan VX.
(42:38):
So Pfizer-Moderna were featuredby our CDC, which never
mentioned Janssen or Novavex,and so it was basically
fraudulent marketing andconflict of interest marketing
that drove all this.
Now it turns out Pfizer-Modernaare both genetic vaccines.
(43:00):
Janssen, which is off themarket, is an adenoviral vector
vaccine very similar toAstraZeneca.
Astrazeneca applied in theUnited States and withdrew their
application.
Astrazeneca's been that's theOxford vaccine has been
withdrawn worldwide.
By the way, janssen andAstraZeneca made by the same
company and that's emergentbiosolutions outside of
(43:22):
Baltimore, maryland.
Oh, wow.
So you know they're similar, ifnot almost identical.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Well, that's the same with Pfizer-Moderna right.
They make it for each other.
Speaker 3 (43:30):
Yeah Well, pfizer is made through a consortium.
Moderna is largely made by acompany called Resilience Got a
big factory in Mississauga.
We'll have another one big onein Australia.
But the companies don't maketheir own products, right?
A lot of people don't know thatThey're made by biodefense
contractors.
Then, lastly, novavax.
Novavax was the originalAmerican company.
(43:52):
Novavax is still on the markettoday, but virtually nobody
knows about it.
The CDC never mentions it.
It's the only non-geneticvaccine out there.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
Right.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
If I personally, if I had a gun put to my head right
now and I had to take a vaccine,far and away it'd be Novavax.
Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
I forget his name.
You probably know.
But the gentleman who was sortof the founder or the leader or
the pioneer of the mRNAtechnology came out very early
on and said this is not how thisis supposed to be used.
This is going to be a problem.
It's not going to be healthy.
Of course the information wasall suppressed.
I'd never said anything on myshow because I was more
(44:38):
concerned about liability etcetera.
But I told my friends andfamily if you have to get it
because, look, i don't faultanyone that had to get it If you
have to feed your familybetween these companies that
said you have to get vaccinatedor you're fired and you have
family to feed and can't live onunemployment or whatever, i get
(44:59):
it.
I really do understand that.
I would tell them go get J&J orNovavax, don't do the mRNA one,
because the pioneer of mRNA hascome out and said this is going
to be bad.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
I can opine on that.
I was the only public figure inwriting who questioned the
vaccines before they came out.
You're talking to him.
Not a single person voicedtheir concerns in writing ahead
of time.
I did in a very prominent op-edin the Hill August of 2020.
I was the only doctor in theworld who questioned it.
(45:39):
Everyone else was in some typeof fear-driven trance.
It's amazing that peoplewouldn't look at this and say
wait a minute, the genetic codefor the lethal spike protein
that's going to be the vaccine.
That sounds dangerous.
I mean, it was astonishing.
So what we've learned ismessenger RNA is a complete
disaster.
(46:00):
There's been a paper written byLelani and colleagues in the
British Medical Journal sayingthe United States has had an
investment in messenger RNAsince 1985.
Tens of billions of dollars.
There's been a love affair withmessenger RNA because it's a
quick way to make a proteininside the human body.
(46:21):
However, it cannot becontrolled, cannot turn it on
and off.
Now we've learned that itdoesn't get out of the body.
At least the fullypseudo-eurodenated form, which
is visumidurna, is like apermanent installation of
genetic code in the body,producing the spike protein,
(46:42):
which causes tissue injury,organ damage, clotting, bleeding
and causes disease, to installthis genetic code in the body
and have it stay in there for aslong as we can tell right now.
It's been an absolute disaster.
Now, in 2012, our militaryresearch division called DARPA
(47:04):
launched a program called theADEPT P3 program.
It's still on their website.
It says we will end pandemicsin 60 days using messenger RNA.
You say, wait a minute.
That's before visumidurna.
How did DARPA know That was ourmilitary aspiration of using
this?
In 2017, there wasself-replicating RNA that was
(47:30):
used in vaccines for pig orswine.
Speaker 1 (47:35):
The companies have been on this genetic trail and
we've just caught up with theCOVID-19, and we've realized,
boy, the side effects aredefinitely not worth it, it
sounds like From what I'veunderstood just from following
you, is that you really came tothe medical challenges that you
(47:55):
saw through the medicaltreatment and vaccination piece.
Then later correct me if I'mwrong as you got deeper into
your study, you started todiscover the premeditation piece
and connections between Fauciand Wuhan.
What concrete proof did you seethat just that is?
(48:18):
Was there anything that justturned on the light for you and
went oh, this is way bigger thanjust improper care and
vaccination?
Speaker 3 (48:27):
Yeah, i think the big piece of evidence that still
the House Select Committee onthe coronavirus origins will not
review This should tell yousomething, are the two papers by
Ralph Barrick in VanneetManicherry University of North
Carolina, chapel Hill, in 2015?
.
The title of the paper says aSARS-like bat coronavirus is
(48:53):
poised for human emergence.
In the papers they describeNational Institutes of Health
funded US created gain afunction research grants that
were outsourced to the WuhanInstitute of Hierology.
They were shuttled there by theEcoHealth Alliance.
(49:14):
in Peter Desig.
They were shuttled over there.
The Chinese did work bycontract.
When the virus came out of Wuhan, the WHO announced that this
was early in 2020.
They want an investigative teamand they wanted a majority
member nations of the WHO tosend in investigative teams.
(49:39):
In Rear Admiral Brett Gerrard,who was on the coronavirus task
force for President Trump, henominated three eminent
independent scientists torepresent the US and go over
there.
The WHO rejected it and theysaid no, we want Peter Desig of
the EcoHealth Alliance.
I said wait a minute.
He was involved with the RalphBarrick papers.
(50:01):
He was involved in the creationof this.
Now he's going to go over andmake some determination.
This is what we've learned.
This all came out through theemails Fauci's emails that Fauci
and his boss, francis Collins,with Jeremy Ferrar, who was at
the Welcome Trust at the time,is now the Chief Scientist at
WHO, christian Anderson, atScripps Redwin Holmes at New
(50:25):
York City of Sydney, peter Desig.
They all got on a conferencecall in January of 2020 and they
said listen, we've got to comeup with a narrative here.
We can't tell people.
it came out of the lab.
They launched an intentionaldeceptive campaign.
They published 12 fraudulentpapers in the peer-reviewed
(50:48):
literature stating that thevirus came out of the fish
market in Wuhan or came out ofnature.
It was intentional.
Those individuals I namedconspired to conceal a worldwide
national security threat.
People died because of it.
They died Under the HouseSelect Committee.
(51:11):
they kept investigating.
Comer was the chair, chip Royassisted.
I talked to Chip several times.
He's from Texas.
They got to the point where theysaid it's clear, it came out of
the lab.
The National Security Agencysaid you're right, it came out
of the lab.
The FBI said yeah, it came outof the lab.
(51:33):
The Department of Energy saidyes.
Former CDC Director Redfieldsaid yes.
The CDC said yes.
The NIH Fauci Collins Emailssaid yes.
Actually, all these governmentagencies had oversight in the
Wuhan lab.
That's how far they were in.
The US Congress voted 419-0 todeclassify the documents.
(51:56):
Tell us what the US was doingin Wuhan over the years before
this came out of the lab.
Now Director of NationalIntelligence Averill Haynes,
world Economic Forum Associate,will not release the US
documents.
I have to tell you this now ispretty deep as a US problem.
(52:22):
The US created this in theChinese lab.
Now last week a whistleblower,young Chinese scientist, xiao
Cao, came out and he was sayinglisten, early in 2019 he was
approached from his former boss.
They were both at University ofTexas Medical Branch in
(52:42):
Galveston.
His boss, who now works for GSKhis boss over there so I'm
penyang at the time said listen,here's four strains of the
coronavirus.
figure out which one spreadsthe fastest and is most lethal.
This was in early 2019.
Now this kid has come out andblown this and said wait a
(53:06):
minute, now we're piecing inthis guy.
This was a US project done in alab in China.
China took it and then lookslike they operationalized it
into a real biologic threat andeither they intentionally
released it orsemi-intentionally released it,
or something happened in the lab.
Speaker 1 (53:27):
A lot of people assert now that the climate
change massive, the pull ofclimate change and the control
of climate change, which is alsovery attached to the World
Economic Forum.
Some of these climate changeleaders consistently blame the
(53:47):
growth of population and thevaccine and the virus was merely
a population reduction tool.
Is that just a conspiracytheory or do you think there's
some truth to that?
Speaker 3 (54:04):
It's so hard to ascribe motive.
One would actually have to askRalph Barak What were you
thinking when you devised thischimeric virus?
Was this first the sake ofscience?
Was this on behalf of the USmilitary to actually cause
damage to another country?
(54:24):
But no one will call RalphBarak to the US House or Senate
and ask him those questions.
No one will.
No one will even enter thosepapers into evidence.
I would want to ask Xiao Caonow is one of the four strains
you were given was at the BarakStrain was at the US invention
(54:46):
from the lab in Wuhan, china?
What we can do is we can lookat the biopharmaceutical complex
and we can look at theiraspirational statements.
Within a few months of theCOVID-19 pandemic kicking off,
klaus Schwab published a book.
That means he must have beenwriting it before the start of
the pandemic.
He said that the COVID-19crisis will be a limited window
(55:10):
to establish a new world order.
We should take him seriously.
The World Economic Forum intheir new world order does
prioritize many things,including climate change, carbon
footprints and digital currency, credit scores, various types
(55:35):
of social credit scores.
Yuval Harari, a young upstartin the World Economic Forum.
He's used the term that there'stoo many useless eaters.
He said this in the world.
Bill Gates is part of thebiopharmaceutical complex.
He's publicly uttered in a TEDTalk that one way to reduce the
(55:57):
world's population is throughmass vaccinations.
Hard to know what he meant.
Klaus Schwab, in 2017, publishedThe Fourth Industrial
Revolution.
In that book, he said that thehuman being will be transformed
They'll be transhumanism.
In The Fourth IndustrialRevolution.
(56:17):
The environment doesn't change,but human changes, he says.
In The Fourth IndustrialRevolution, its winner takes all
.
What does he mean by that?
Is Klaus Schwab the winner?
Is he taking all?
Is it the WEF?
Is it the biopharmaceuticalcomplex as we've defined it in
our book?
We don't know, but it doesn'tsound good for the common man.
Speaker 1 (56:39):
No, it doesn't.
What's interesting to me isthis country does have a history
of sponsoring or being involvedin some pretty scary medical
experiments.
I'm sure you're familiar withthe Tuskegee experiment on
hundreds of black men withsyphilis.
Dr John Money was basically thepioneer of the transgender
(57:01):
movement from John HopkinsUniversity in Baltimore.
There's several clinical trialsthat have happened.
I'm just wondering if there isa chance that this whole thing
was one big medical experiment.
Speaker 3 (57:19):
You know you'd have to ask the question.
What were they trying to learn?
Why did so many people take thevaccine?
Normally if you're doing anexperiment you give it to a
small number of people, but youbrought up Tuskegee.
Let's talk about it.
Tuskegee was in, you know, wasin done in the South, and just a
(57:46):
horrendous program by the USCDC and Public Health Service to
study syphilis in black men ina relatively isolated part of
the South.
And the atrocity there is.
Once it became widely knownthat penicillin could treat
syphilis, instead of offeringpenicillin to these men, they
(58:12):
concealed it.
They concealed penicillin fromthe men.
They offered them some uselessvitamins and supplements.
They let the men infect theirwives.
Yeah, they let the men infecttheir wives.
Their children got it.
It was congenital syphilis.
And they actually withheldethical treatment.
That was Tuskegee.
(58:32):
Our government, in the COVID-19response, withheld, impeded and
undermined effective treatment.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
I just want to ask you one more question, if you
don't mind.
What would you say that theabsolute contributor to vaccine
injury?
Is there a preexistingcondition, weakened immune
system?
Is there something peopleshould?
if people have it, they shouldright away start to work on that
to prevent that vaccine injury.
Speaker 3 (59:00):
The single greatest thing that contributes to
vaccine injury is the batch ofvaccine.
People should look up whatbatch they have.
You can look up mybadbatchcomor hotlots It's the batch.
In a paper by Schmeling andcolleagues from Denmark The
batch accounts for 75% plus ofall the variation in outcome.
So it's really not the person.
(59:21):
It's a matter of if you've gota bad batch And we think maybe
some batches have hyperconcentrated lipid,
nanoparticles in messenger RNAor they're contaminated with
C-DNA or other visiblecontaminants.
But it's really a productproblem, it's not a person
problem.
Any medical problem that peoplehave can get far worse with the
vaccine.
So, for instance, if they'vehad a stroke or blood clots, oh
(59:43):
boy can that get worse with thevaccine.
Heart disease, like heartblockages, bypass surgery, prior
heart attacks, prior stroke.
Neurologic disease, likemultiple sclerosis, for instance
.
Neuropathies can get way worse.
Like Eric Clapton, he had abaseline neuropathy got way
worse with the vaccine.
Well studied there.
And then immunologic problemsautoimmunity people who already
(01:00:08):
have systemic lupus, rheumatoidarthritis, other autoimmune
problems.
So we just have to watch out.
Vaccine makes people sick.
15% of people who take thevaccine have some new medical
illness.
According to a Zogby surveylast summer, it's been the worst
health event for America, forsure, wow.
Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Well, thank you so much, Dr McCullough.
You have been fantastic, as youare with all your other
interviews and all your other TVspots.
You are truly a wealth ofknowledge and we are very
blessed to have you on the show.
Thank you very much for yourtime.
Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
Well, thank you so much And remember to follow me
on my website,petermculloughmdcom.
I'm the Chief ScientificOfficer of the Wellness Company
twchealthcom, my podcast,america Outlaw Talk, radio
McCullough Report, substackCourageous Discourse Book
Courage to Face COVID-19.
And, of course, you'll see meout in the major media almost
every day.
(01:01:04):
I'm not going to rest untilthis crisis is over.
Again, i'm Dr Peter McCullough.
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:01:10):
Man is my mind blown.
That interview was way moreintense and jam-packed with
information than I ever couldhave expected.
This man is truly, trulybrilliant And I hope all of you
are feeling just as excitedabout it as I am disgusting.
(01:01:32):
What happened with COVID?
And they're trying to push itunder the rug and cover it up,
and we have to remind peopleevery day that this was not a
pandemic.
This was a planned democ by theboys up in the World Economic
Forum.
But there you go, folks.
You heard it here first.
I'm Chad Law, reminding you ofwhat Reagan once said The
(01:01:54):
American dream of human progressthrough freedom and equality of
opportunity in competitiveenterprise is still the most
revolutionary idea in the worldtoday.
It's also the most successful.
Amen, none of that Marxist BS.
God bless you, president Reagan, and may God save America.
Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
You just listened to the Last Gay Conservative
podcast hosted by Chad Law.
Please visit us atlastgayconservativecom for this
episode and others.
We're also on Spotify, applePodcasts, u2, and wherever you
listen.
If you like the show, pleaselike, subscribe and share.
Find us on social.
At Last Gay Conservative, weproudly support the following
(01:02:52):
causes the Convention of StatesAction, the National Rifle
Association, the HeritageFoundation and Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America.
Disclaimer the views andopinions expressed in this
program are those of thespeakers and do not necessarily
reflect the views or positionsof any entities they represent.
The Last Gay Conservative is aproduction of Ben Wright Media.
(01:03:14):
All rights reserved 2022.
Discovering the truth of COVID-19 with Dr Peter
McCullough, america's leadingexpert on all things COVID and
the damage done.
If you're listening to The LastGay Conservative, i'm your host
.
Chad Law Worship every inchyour feet have touched.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Baby, run away with me.
You kill lonely.
You make my eyes all see, ohcrazy.
You make my heart believe.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Hello America, we want to hear from you.
866-last-gaay, 866-last-gaay,866-last-gaay.
Send us a text, leave a messageon the message line and surely
you'll hear back from us or I'llbring it up on the air.
Don't be shy, people.
I love to hear from you.
(01:19):
So welcome to another episodeof The Last Gay Conservative.
For those of you who don't know, my name is Chad Law, america's
binary brother, the holiesthomo of all time and the
ultimate beacon of truth sendingcommon sense, conservative
politics on the airwaves, theonly rainbow that matters the
red, white and blue rainbow.
Well, it's been quite a week.
I see all of you enjoy theinterview with Heather Guessling
(01:42):
from the Wellness Company.
I've been really on a healthkick lately, so I've been trying
to give you guys as muchinformation now post vaccine as
possible.
A lot of vaccine injured peoplecoming out of the woodwork and
want to make sure that we haveall the information we need in
order to make the correctdecision.
I also think it's veryimportant to understand where
all this COVID stuff came fromand why it was so bad and what
(02:05):
has happened, because we'recoming up on a very important
election and you will need tounderstand what the democratic
regime did in order to interferein our lives and essentially
shut down our entire way of life, government business for two
years.
It was evil, what was done andthere was no care or treatment
(02:27):
provided.
So I decided I would startbringing in the best experts in
the country, and I certainly did.
Today I'm interviewing Dr PeterMcCullough Maybe you've seen him
.
He has been the expert witnessfor the Senate House Health and
Human Services Committee.
He's been an expert witness forthe Texas Senate.
He's been an expert witness forthe House of Representatives,
(02:48):
the federal government.
He's also a board certifiedcardiologist and internist and
one of the first people thatsaid wait a minute, i get COVID.
But how come we're not treatingany of these patients?
How come we're not trying toprotect them from going to the
hospital?
Because once they go to thehospital the mortality rate
skyrockets.
(03:08):
So he created the McCulloughProtocol, which is a protocol on
how doctors could treatpatients with COVID to keep them
from going to the hospital.
He has a multitude of awards,published papers, documented
proof and so much data.
Even the liberal media can'tspin it in their favor.
Dr Peter McCullough is theleading expert on all things
(03:32):
COVID, all things COVID,vaccinations and I am very
blessed to have him on the show.
He's big time.
He's been on Joe Rogan.
He's constantly on Epoch News,newsmax Fox and he loves our
show and asked if he could do it, so we're very excited to have
him here.
Let's head to the last gayinterview studio now.
(03:54):
The following segment ispresented, commercial free, by
the wellness company, a new typeof healthcare governed and
operated with transparency, notpushed around by big pharma, and
focused on keeping you and yourfamily well.
They have a range ofsupplements that will make you
(04:14):
feel incredible, combined withtelemedicine from providers that
don't have an agenda.
Go to twchealth today andexperience what it's like to
have pure healthcare,uninfluenced by anything else.
Again, folks, twchealth, goonline, choose one of the two
memberships and see what it'slike to finally live your life
(04:37):
well.
All right, folks, we're here inthe last gay interview studio
with Dr Peter McCullough.
Dr McCullough, it looks likeyou are a Texan through and
through.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Well, like so many people, I moved down here when I
was a kid, but I do considermyself a Texan and it's been a
good state.
I grew up here, went to highschool here, undergraduate at
Baylor, then UT, southwesternMedical School in Dallas, but I
went off.
I went off to New York City,washington, in Seattle, for
(05:15):
residency, New York City inMichigan for graduate school,
rural health service and thenfellowship, and now I was
spending the last part of mycareer in Texas.
Glad to be back.
Lone Star State.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
So now, dr McCullough , your resume is seriously
impressive And without mereading every publication and
every award certification, couldyou just sum up for the
audience some of yourcredentials?
Speaker 3 (05:42):
Well, i'm an academic internist and cardiologist so I
maintain my boardcertifications in both fields
And I've had a research interestthroughout my career of how
different organ systems relateto one another, particularly the
heart and the kidneys.
In that area I had a massed, aconsiderable publication base
(06:04):
worked in in vitro diagnostics.
Clinical trials and strategieshave been involved with the FDA,
a couple dozen data safetymonitoring boards.
I've been the overall principalinvestigator of large
randomized trials And then whenCOVID hit, i redirected my
research focus to the infectionbecause there's such an unmet
(06:24):
need.
It was a brand new illness.
Americans were beinghospitalized and dying and I
wanted to make a contributionthere to help as many people as
I could.
So I led the early treatmentefforts in the United States
academically with seminalpublications, and now I've
turned my attention to thesafety of the COVID-19 vaccine
(06:45):
program since that became such alarge issue worldwide Now, in
that I have over 685publications in the National
Library of Medicine cited, over70 in COVID As a reference point
.
It would take about 25 for afull professor of medicine to be
granted, so I've been veryactive.
(07:06):
I've been asked now on threeoccasions to testify in the US
Senate.
Two times I was theco-moderator and the lead and
testified in multiple statesenates.
Yesterday I gave a preparedpresentation for the European
Parliament.
So I think most people aroundthe world know me and they know
(07:27):
me for I think, a couple ofthings One in COVID being very
accurate and I cite theliterature in every instance And
also actually being correct onsome very important points that
change people's lives,particularly the need for early
(07:48):
treatment And, i have to say,parenthetically, in the last
several months I have renderedopinions on this explosive
transgender movement in medicine.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yeah, and it's incredible to see.
I've watched some of yourSenate testimony.
I've listened to some of yourinterviews And what I love about
what you do is just like yousaid, you're an academic and
everything you do is backed upby data.
You're not someone who reallythe anti-anti the people who are
(08:25):
trying to suppress informationlike what you deliver to the
public.
they can't really argue withyou because you have it there in
black and white And you'vebecome really the nation's
leading medical doctor that'scriticized.
the response to COVID and thevaccine rollout and
administration.
I've heard you talk aboutpharmaceutical overreach during
(08:48):
the pandemic.
What point at the beginning ofthis?
did you smell something fishy?
Speaker 3 (08:55):
I said from the very beginning that, watching this
unfold, that there are only twobad outcomes of COVID
Hospitalization and death.
That's it That if one was nothospitalized, one did not lose
their life, they could getthrough the illness.
And I didn't hear a singleleader articulate that problem.
(09:17):
We had two presidents.
They couldn't articulate theproblem.
Hhs secretaries, coronavirustask forces.
They were stating otherobjectives, slowing the spread,
you know, masking, socialdistancing, lockdowns.
They actually could notarticulate the problem.
So when we have leaders thatcan't articulate the problem,
(09:41):
our chances of success are goingto be low.
Because if the problem washospitalization and death, then
the strategy would be to dosomething to prevent
hospitalization and death, Thatis, treat the problem.
Treat the problem to reduce therisk of hospitalization and
death.
Now I recently read the book ACloud Over the White House by
(10:03):
Scott Atlas, And he met withTrump on a daily basis, him and
the COVID task force, Dr Fauci,Dr Bricks, Rear, Edmonds, Brett,
Gerard, Mark Meadows, Chief ofStaff, And I read every page of
his book.
Do you know?
not one time did they discusstreating COVID patients.
All they did was focus on masksand lockdowns and social
(10:28):
distancing, go over the data.
None of those things help asick patient.
To me, it's so obvious Take careof the sick patient.
Instead, they were just focusedon everything but the sick
patient.
And you know, when I got to theTexas Senate testimony in March
of 2021, I really lit a fire tothe Health and Human Services
(10:50):
Committee And I said everyone isso focused on the vaccine.
Where's the focus on sickpeople right now?
Well, you know, that ended uplanding me on Tucker Carlson And
Tucker said well, why arepeople focusing on the vaccine?
Why are they focusing ontreating the problem?
And so it kind of set Tucker ona two-year exploration into
(11:12):
this issue And ultimately, youknow, he lost his job over it.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
It's insane to me to think that you talk about the
cloud over the White House.
I've read paper after paper Andit's absolutely insane for me
to think that there was oneperson who was the face of the
pandemic.
any other time we've had anysort of medical rollout.
(11:39):
Even in the AIDS epidemic orpandemic in the 80s, there was
always some sort of panel.
Why do you think it all wasfouchy?
Speaker 3 (11:52):
You know, initially it was a White House task force.
I remember that.
You know seeing.
You know a couple of dozenpeople stand up on stage And I
was being very active at thetime.
You know White House contactedme, by the way, early in the
pandemic.
So did the US Senate.
So when I testified in the USSenate November 19, 2020, i said
listen, there needs to be fourteams, four pillars of pandemic
(12:15):
response.
Number one is a team working onreducing the spread of the
virus.
It turned out what worked wasusing virus-side nasal sprays
and gargles.
That was something that theWhite House never acknowledged.
Pillar number two team numbertwo was early treatment.
That would be me and all thedoctors in my circles, ones well
(12:36):
known to you, including thegroup that led the FLCC American
Frontline Doctors, now thegroup leading the wellness
company all well known earlytreatment experts.
Pillar number three was inhospital treatment.
We needed to hear improvementsand original research being done
in the hospital.
And then the last number fourwould be I focused on vaccines
(13:00):
for those at high risk, providedwe had a safer, effective
vaccine, and I had sketched thisout.
I had written a series of op-edsin the Hill, a journal for the
House and the Senate and theWhite House insiders in
Washington, and I sketched thisout, but I said probably 2.7
million would receive a vaccineif it was safe and effective,
(13:21):
probably no more than thatbecause it would be targeted.
And we didn't see a balancedapproach at all.
We didn't see any teamwork.
In fact, the White House taskforces basically melted away and
we ended up with one dictator,and that was Dr Anthony Fauci.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
Yeah.
Another question I wanted toask you was, as Four mentioned,
you're a very successfulcardiologist and internist.
Before COVID, were you abeliever in integrated care?
For example, you have thisincredible heart support
supplement, but I feel like mosttraditional or streamlined
(14:00):
doctors would probably prefer toprescribe a diuretic or a beta
blocker or do nothing until theactual disease presents itself.
How did you approach medicineprior to COVID?
Speaker 3 (14:14):
I'm a traditional allopathic physician, largely
doing all the in vitrodiagnostics, imaging and then
various forms of prescriptiontherapy.
Now I did publish a few papersabout nutraceuticals and
supplements for heart diseasefor those who've had bariatric
(14:36):
surgery.
So I had a, i would say, amodest interest in that area.
And what's in the wellnesscompany heart support supplement
, as an example is everything Iwould recommend to my patients,
which I have for 20 years anyway, including selenium and
L-carnitine, d-ribose, coenzymeQ10, et cetera, and N-B vitamins
(14:59):
.
It's because, in the setting ofa weakened heart pump, for
instance, deficiencies of any ofthose actually cause
form-fruits heart failure, likeberry berry as an example.
So we had, i want to say, thoseprinciples in allopathic
medicine, but by no stretch ofthe imagination was my practice
(15:23):
holistic or integrative, andthat's really changed since the
pandemic.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
And we talk about deep prescribing from the
wellness company, about the deepprescribing and about medical
choice and removingpharmaceuticals.
But then, when we talk aboutthe treatment of COVID, one of
the treatments that comes up alot is the hydrochloroquine and
ivermectin, which aretechnically traditional
pharmaceuticals that have beenused to treat a lot of diseases.
(15:52):
Have you used those in the pastfor viruses?
Speaker 3 (15:57):
I've never used them for viruses.
but boy, i prescribed a lot ofhydroxylchloroquine for systemic
lupus, for rheumatoid arthritis.
I mean back in the day when Idid my training at University of
Washington in Seattle, ourrheumatology clinic at Pacific
Medical Center, i mean we sawwhat we did back then.
It was branded plaquino.
We had prescribed a red and aplaquino.
(16:17):
Now ivermectin, i had used itoccasionally for widespread
scabies.
I had never encountered apatient with river blindness,
but ivermectin certainly hadused that before.
None of those were appliedagainst viral infections Viral
infections.
in the past we would usevarious forms of antiviral.
(16:42):
So for instance Ganscyclovirwith cytomegalovirus, acyclovir
and Valacyclovir for herpessimplex as an example.
We would use Old Temavir, whichis Tamiflu, for influenza.
Now there's a modern version ofthat.
And of course we usedantivirals in a combination
(17:05):
called HEART or highly activeretroviral therapy for HIV.
But I had never used theoff-label drugs to treat the
virus.
Now we certainly found withCOVID hydroxychloroquine had
antiviral properties.
We found that ivermectin did,believe it or not, as
zithromycin.
there was about half a dozenstudies suggesting it also had
(17:27):
some modest in vitro activity.
So did doxycycline And then,importantly, fomotidine.
I think Fomotidine was probablythe biggest surprise, that's
pepsid.
Yeah, I was just saying, I thinkI take that, Yeah, pepsid is
interesting that the SARS-CoV-2virus has two ways it gets into
(17:48):
cells.
One is through the ACE2receptor which is on the surface
of the cell, And then there'swhat's called the Tempris-2,
which is on the basolateral partof the respiratory epithelial
cell.
And there's two ways the virusgets in.
Fomotidine blocks the Tempris-2receptor.
It also reduces inflammation.
(18:09):
It's an antihistamine and acid.
But we found that we needed touse four times the normal dose,
which was 80 milligrams a day.
But I think Fomotidine, out ofall the drugs, was the biggest
surprise.
You know there was a 20,000person study by MIRA and
colleagues at University ofVirginia showing those who were
lucky enough to get Fomotidine,or they knew about it, had about
(18:31):
a 45% reduction in the risk ofhospitalization, death or need
for the mechanical ventilator.
That's with a simpleover-the-counter medicine.
And so in the McCullochprotocol it was always about
four to six drugs in combinationAnd I ended up treating
patients in their 90s, peoplewith heart failure, emphysema,
patients with low oxygensaturation.
We managed it all at home andgot people through it without
(18:54):
being hospitalized.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Wow, because what I wanted to know is because
there's so many people that werelike oh my god, you know this
is don't, you can't doivermectin, hydrochloroquine or
any of the other quote unquotealternative, even though they're
not alternative.
And my response and my questionI didn't have an answer at the
time, i still don't but is whatis the absolute worst that can
(19:15):
happen if you do treat thisperson and they have COVID and
they don't respond to thattreatment.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Well, it would be the same thing that would happen to
those who got no treatment issome people would get worse, to
the point where they're souncomfortable they can't breathe
or getting dehydrated that theywould have to be hospitalized.
So there was no risk at all,because the worst thing that
would happen is that peoplewould not get treatment and they
(19:43):
would end up being hospitalized.
So there was no downside to it.
There was only an upside.
We know how to prescribe bothdrugs hydroxychloroquine,
ivermectin.
We also know how to prescribeFomotidine, by the way, used to
be prescription.
So we know how to prescribethese drugs.
We know the typical safetycaveats.
I'll give you an examplehydroxychloroquine In an
(20:04):
African-American person with agenetic problem called G6PD
deficiency can cause a hemolyticanemia.
Well, we know that and we takecaution.
Patients on certain cardiacdrugs or can be interactions was
called prolonging the QTinterval.
I think we know that.
Ivermectin patients withseizures we know about the
seizure threshold as an example.
Clearly, people with allergiesto either one of those With
(20:27):
Fomotidine it's the same thingPeople with an allergy to it are
intolerance.
So doctors know how toprescribe drugs.
So that was never the problem.
The problem in this case waswhat we call therapeutic nealism
is that doctors wereprescribing no drugs.
They were telling the patientdon't take any medicine
whatsoever and then wait untilyou're sick enough and then go
(20:50):
into the hospital.
That recommendation was adisaster.
That was the original NIHrecommendation and it was
terrible.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
Yeah, i don't know if it was a placebo effect for me,
but one of the things that Iimmediately did when I got COVID
was start having, like Myerscocktail bags intravenously and
intravenous vitamin C Instead ofthe 10-day window.
I was over it in about threeand a half days and felt much
better than some of mycolleagues and people that work
(21:21):
for me.
That is something that I did onmy own, as my own advocate, but
it was very frustrating to seefriends and family who just were
so scared to do anything butsit in bed and cough for 10 days
.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
I know, and what we learned is, doing something was
so much better than doingnothing.
Turns out that the Myerscocktails, various forms of IVs.
They help because people areprone to getting dehydrated.
When someone gets dehydrated,they get nauseated.
Then when they get nauseated,they don't drink enough fluid
and then they get even moredehydrated.
(21:58):
What breaks that cycle is theIVs.
The IVs, it turns out somenurses that really were fearless
.
They started home nursingservices and they would go out,
and I would have them go out topatients' houses and give an IV
of Myers cocktail and, let's say, a leader of ringer lactate or
normal saline.
We were able to give monoclonalantibodies, which are always
(22:22):
safe and effective, believe itor not.
We learned that vitamin C, ifgiven in high enough doses, also
had an antiviral effect.
Speaker 1 (22:34):
You talk about the monoclonal antibodies and we
heard that a little bit.
It got swept under the rug.
Obviously, COVID is still out.
There Are those available stillto use.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
No.
Monoclonal antibodies are nowall taken off the market.
Each one only lasted a fewmonths on the market.
They were always safe andeffective.
It was the saddest thing thatpeople were hospitalized and
they never got a chance to getthe monoclonals.
Everybody should have gotten amonoclonal infusion when they
showed up to the ER.
Those who were admitted to thehospital and died, it's because
(23:10):
they didn't get monoclonalantibodies in the ER.
They didn't get ivermectin orother drugs we could safely use
in the hospital.
They basically died because ofunder treatment.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
One of the things that you talk about is
preventing people to get to thehospital.
I'm making the assumption herethat the reason why it's so
important to prevent patientsfrom getting to the hospital
with COVID is because themortality rate shoots up once
someone checks into the hospitalor gets on a respirator.
Now we see all kinds of datathat says most of those deaths
(23:42):
were also combined with diabetesor an immunodeficiency or any
other.
They weren't just straightCOVID deaths, but the hospitals
were so quick to rule them COVIDdeaths.
Do you know why that would be?
Speaker 3 (23:58):
Our CDC says that 10% of the deaths it was just COVID
, pneumonia.
90% of the deaths there wassome other contributing medical
problem.
You know obesity, diabetes,heart and lung disease, kidney
disease, cancer.
The Italian data are similar,actually 3%, just straight COVID
, 97% other contributors.
(24:21):
This is an important point.
That means a perfectly healthyperson with no medical problems
almost certainly was going tosurvive COVID And it was medical
problems that added on.
It was the sicker and frailpeople that really got in
trouble.
This helped us with riskstratification.
I remember early on.
You know what I said is peopleunder 50, no medical problems.
(24:44):
They actually don't need anytreatment at all.
They can just, you know, takecare of it like a common cold.
That was always in theMcCulloch protocol no treatment.
It was a large paper by mockeryand colleagues from Iran And I
was paying attention to whatother countries were doing.
They only treated 25% of theadults, those who are older who
had medical problems.
(25:04):
75% of people didn't need anytreatment.
So you know that's called riskstratification And you know what
we want people to understand isthat if there was no COVID,
those people who died 1.2million people died they'd
probably still be alive today.
Some would have died of othercauses over the next several
(25:26):
months or a few years, but COVIDrobbed them of it.
And you know, the other veinthat came out in this is that
there was over coding.
This was important.
So once somebody testedpositive for COVID, they were
going to intermittently testpositive for many months
afterwards Because the virus isstill alive and replicating
(25:50):
slowly in someone's body formany months afterwards.
So they're going to be PCRpositive.
So we'd see somebody, let's saya nursing home patient, come in
for COVID.
They would be treated, theywould be fine.
Six months later they'd come inwith a hip fracture and they
would test them again.
They say, oh, he's got COVIDagain, and so we'd be labeled a
COVID admission and actually dieof some complication after hip
(26:12):
fracture.
Well, that second admissionwasn't a COVID death, it was
really a hip fracture death withcomplications, and so that
actually worked to ramp up andoverestimate the number of COVID
deaths.
And as we sit here today, theUnited States is number one in
the world in declared COVIDdeaths.
Can you imagine that?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
And we're less than 5% of the world's population.
Wow Yeah, especially having itstart and spread rapidly through
China now multiple times youwould think that their mortality
rate would be much higher thanours.
but it's because, like you said, i guess, the overcoating.
I've also heard reports and I'mvery I try to stay away from
(26:54):
the crazy crackpot people, butI've heard reports that the
federal government issued like$20,000 to $30,000 for COVID
death in the hospital.
So they would label someone aCOVID death even though their
foot was already at the edge ofthe grave with diabetes or high
blood pressure or something, andCOVID kind of just pushed them
(27:15):
in.
Do you know of any of that?
Is that correct?
Speaker 3 (27:19):
Yeah, I hasn't been in my area of study.
What I generally know is thatthe Health and Human Services
used what's calledcountermeasure funding and they
offered preferential payments tohospitals, even if people were
not on Medicare or have forms ofpayment.
So COVID itself was paid.
A use of a mechanicalventilator paid more.
(27:41):
Use of Remdesivir paid more,And if there was a mortality, in
fact they would be paid more.
Even the family received somemoney if there was a COVID
deaths.
So these are what's calledperverse incentives.
Hospitals were perverselyincentivized for these outcomes.
And you can imagine what if thehospitals were paid to keep
(28:01):
people alive or keep them out ofthe hospital.
We could have changed thecomplexion of the pandemic.
Perverse incentives are alwaysa bad thing.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Yeah, well, usually when you get money involved in
medicine, which there has to besome sort of privatization.
But when there's incentiveslike that and they don't
necessarily align with patientcare coming first, it sounds
like it's just a recipe forcorruption and fraud and over
(28:32):
coding and over billing and allof those things that can lead to
skew of the data.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
Most of it came.
Most of it.
The entree to this was overtesting.
Now, the nasal and the oraltests were only FDA approved as
a diagnostic aid in someone'ssick suspected of having COVID.
The tests were never meant tobe used for people traveling,
people coming into the hospitalfor heart catheterizations or
(29:04):
normal labor and delivery orsurgeries.
The testing that was off-labeltesting was rampant And all it
did was raise more fear andconcerns, artificially elevate
the case count And it wasted amassive amount of money And the
FDA never said to do that.
The WHO in June of 2021 saidstop all this asymptomatic
(29:27):
testing.
They said don't do it And itwas.
Finally we got to the summer of2022 and the CDC said stop all
this asymptomatic testing.
But for the longest time,hospitals tested everybody for
no reason.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
I know.
I mean it was so crazy.
Here Stores had temperaturegauges And I actually think that
thermometer makes more sensethan asymptomatic testing,
because I'm almost 40.
I have lived through avariation of different flues or
whatnot.
I'm obviously gay, so I seepeople with HIV and AIDS quite
(30:07):
often And I think about thiswine flu, i think about SARS the
first time, the avian flu Noneof those flues and just the
regular seasonal flu.
I have never once heardasymptomatic combined with a flu
.
It's always had fever, cough,sneezing stomach, whatever.
(30:30):
So why all of a sudden did this?
I felt like the word just gotmade up.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Oh, that's a good point.
That's a good point, yeah.
So your point is well, there'sno such thing as asymptomatic
flu, right, i mean, it's eitheryou have the flu or you don't.
So this idea of asymptomaticCOVID was basically a construct
(31:00):
of modeling, of, in a sense,false academic modeling studies.
It was assumed that COVID couldbe spread asymptomatically, and
it couldn't.
There were two papers, one bycow, the other one by madewell,
that disproved asymptomaticspread.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
And that was one of the first times I was like
there's absolutely no waysomeone could be walking around
with COVID and not know it,because the people that I did
see that had it got pretty sicknot necessarily death or
hospitalization, but it was arough flu for about a week And I
just thought there's just noway that there's people walking
around freely just breathing oneveryone with COVID.
(31:40):
I'm not a doctor, but it seemedlike common sense to me.
And then when they startedusing that term over and over
again, especially to justify thevaccine because people are like
, well, i live at home, i hardlyleave the house, i don't
necessarily need the vaccineThey say oh no, anyone you meet
could be asymptomatic.
I thought it was just made up.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
It's true, it became a witch hunt.
Anybody could have it at anytime.
It didn't matter if you had itbefore, natural immunity didn't
count, you could have it again,you know, with it took the
vaccine, it didn't matter, youstill could get the virus.
So it became this miasma,basically an entire mess, and
(32:23):
what we need is we needed justclear, concise messaging.
That's what I did.
I went on national TV dozens,if not hundreds of times and I
consistently gave America themessage on risk stratification,
on spread of the virus, naturalimmunity, early treatment and
(32:44):
then, you know, concernsregarding the vaccines.
Over and over again, i becamebasically known for giving
America accurate and concise,correct information on the
pandemic.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Yeah, and not like I said in the beginning, what I
love about what you did and arestill doing is that you're such
an academic and you're sopublished and the way you think
is so data driven that when youget on national TV unlike some
of these other and I'm not someof these other anti-vaxxers, and
so it's like the left mediaautomatically shuts them down,
(33:21):
discredits them, disproves them,and they absolutely cannot do
that with you.
You've backed them in a cornerwith the right data And I think
what's so incredible is that youwere so ahead of the game and
it's not fast enough, but Ithink, slowly but surely, as
more data comes out, it's kindof catching up to what you've
(33:42):
been saying since 2019.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, what I've told people.
I've told major audiences youknow, stage programs and
elsewhere that I've given moremedia interviews like this one
today and I've given moreanalyses.
I've written more op-eds andput myself out there more than
anybody in the world And it'smore than Anthony Fauci, more
(34:09):
than anybody you can think of.
And the one thing I'vechallenged people is I've told
them you find where I've beenwrong, where I've been wrong on
something And or where I've beeninconsistent.
Now I've changed my view on afew of the aspects of the virus
(34:30):
because the virus is mutated.
But when we have the density ofmedia exposure I have, people
can see the truth.
The fact checkers gave up onthis.
These fact checkers areanonymous, uncredentialed people
just making false counterclaims.
They gave up because I justcite the information.
(34:53):
When I got to the point when Iwent on Joe Rogan, i set all the
records for his podcast stillto this day, a whole heavy
record he's ever done, and itwent all the way up to the White
House And I challengedeverybody.
I said listen, all I did wasshow Joe Rogan the data.
I showed the Spotify producersthe published studies.
I said I'll be happy to sitdown and talk about the data.
(35:13):
We'll just go over the studies.
Which one do you want to startwith?
Everyone's like no, we don'twant to really talk about it.
Speaker 1 (35:23):
Now let me ask you do you feel like because I knew
who you were and I know some ofthe more middle to right media
outlets were publishing you andspreading the news But do you
feel like you were suppressedduring a lot of this time?
Speaker 3 (35:43):
You know I am not a right winger or a left winger,
i'm an independent voter.
So I almost always vote forsome Republicans, some Democrats
.
I think to be an independentvoter you have to be stronger
than either one of the twoparties, because you actually
have to pick qualified people.
It's not tribal.
Some people who are Republicanvoters, they simply just pull
(36:07):
one lever for all the Republicancandidates And the same person
in Democrat would do the samething.
One has to be a lot stronger tobe an independent.
I've always been an independentand I've told all the media
people that It's interestingthat the right wing media
initially tended to gravitate alittle bit more to medical
(36:29):
freedom, but now they'vecompletely moved away.
So most right wing media hasalso turned what's called woke
Woke is this term that meansthey almost kind of lost their
minds on a whole variety ofissues and they turned woke.
Recently our Attorney General,ken Paxton in Texas, who was
(36:52):
going after Pfizer for vaccinefraud, american Board of
Internal Medicine for mysituation of COVID
misinformation policy and wasgoing after Texas children for
transgender surgeries in theyouth.
He was basically impeached byboth the right and the left.
Speaker 1 (37:10):
Well, i know why that is.
I mean you can look at theHealth and Human Services
Committee in the Senate and inthe House.
You can look at various waysand means.
There's so many committees andalmost at least one congressman
(37:31):
or senator had plays withinModerna Pfizer with their own
personal money because they werepre-briefed on the potential
size of the pandemic.
So they all got rich from thevaccine.
And of course they don't wantto have lawsuits because that'll
all go on the record.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
Well, yeah, i wrote a book with John Leake and it's
called COVID-19, the global ofpredators.
We are the no, but in our bookwith John Leake, courage to Face
COVID-19, preventingHospitalizations and Deaths
(38:14):
while Battling theBiopharmaceutical Complex, we
identified a syndicate that hadformed a complex, and at the top
is the World Economic Forum,the World Health Organization,
the Gates Foundation,rockefeller Foundation, Welcome
Trust, cepi, coalition forEpidemic Preparedness and
Innovation formed by Gates andWEF, the major regulatory
(38:37):
agencies, the vaccine companies,and this syndicate basically
ran the table and they investedin one another and they made
extraordinary investments.
For instance, Bill Gatesinvested 55 million into
(39:04):
BioNTech, as an example, and hegot out over a billion.
So they invested in each otherand, again, a not-for-profit
company can do that.
They don't have to worry aboutSEC filings or conflict of
interest or any of these otherthings.
And so this went on.
So this syndicate, they ran thetable and they had incredible
(39:29):
power.
So, for instance, they held 36pandemic preparedness planning
events.
25 of them were written.
This occurred over a decade andsix of them were filmed.
Like Event 201 was filmed, andthis is fascinating.
Do you know that we had statesenators in Event 201, we had
(39:54):
our current director of NationalIntelligence, averal Haynes.
She was in Event 201, almostall the pandemic response
leaders, the CDC from China,director George Gao.
He was there And now that welearned that that was actually
an operational meeting, thevirus was already out the lab.
(40:14):
At that time It was spreadingaround Wuhan So these people
knew.
They knew ahead of time whatwas going on.
And to this day, averal Haynes,her scenario in Event 201 was
how were they going to deceivethe world if it came out of the
lab in Wuhan China?
Do you know?
right now she is not turningover the US documents on the
(40:36):
Wuhan lab And she's 10 days latepast her deadline.
Josh Howley wrote her a letterlast week and said listen,
declassify the documents.
She actually scenario plannedbeing in this situation because
the syndicate is all verytightly aligned to the World
Economic Forum.
They go to Davos every year andthey meet in the World Economic
(41:01):
Forum And they have beenscenario planning pandemics,
climate change, digital currencyconversion, et cetera.
You know this is in the open.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
Yeah, i know it's amazing with the, with the, with
so much, how much is in theopen and how many Americans just
bury their head in the sand onboth sides?
You're absolutely right Nowabout the vaccine in particular.
The question I wanted to askyou is you know the mRNA vaccine
was really the bigger push, butI know J&J had one that was
(41:38):
non-MRNA.
It seemed like more of atraditional flu shot.
Do you see any differences interms of efficacy, safety,
long-term effects and thecardiomyopathy that we're seeing
?
Speaker 3 (41:51):
If we look at American adults, we know from
the COVID community statesprogram, which is more accurate
than what the CDC has, that 75%of Americans took at least one
shot.
That's the statistic.
Now, of those, 94% of it wasmessenger RNA And people have
always asked the vaccines wereall had tons of availability.
(42:16):
Why was it mainly Pfizer andModerna messenger RNA?
We found out thatPfizer-Moderna had a marketing
firm and still does callWeber-Shandwick.
They had an installed marketingunit in the CDC, in the CDC
offices, and Weber-Shandwickalso installed a marketing
program in corporate Americacalled Plan VX.
(42:38):
So Pfizer-Moderna were featuredby our CDC, which never
mentioned Janssen or Novavex,and so it was basically
fraudulent marketing andconflict of interest marketing
that drove all this.
Now it turns out Pfizer-Modernaare both genetic vaccines.
(43:00):
Janssen, which is off themarket, is an adenoviral vector
vaccine very similar toAstraZeneca.
Astrazeneca applied in theUnited States and withdrew their
application.
Astrazeneca's been that's theOxford vaccine has been
withdrawn worldwide.
By the way, janssen andAstraZeneca made by the same
company and that's emergentbiosolutions outside of
(43:22):
Baltimore, maryland.
Oh, wow.
So you know they're similar, ifnot almost identical.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Well, that's the same with Pfizer-Moderna right.
They make it for each other.
Speaker 3 (43:30):
Yeah Well, pfizer is made through a consortium.
Moderna is largely made by acompany called Resilience Got a
big factory in Mississauga.
We'll have another one big onein Australia.
But the companies don't maketheir own products, right?
A lot of people don't know thatThey're made by biodefense
contractors.
Then, lastly, novavax.
Novavax was the originalAmerican company.
(43:52):
Novavax is still on the markettoday, but virtually nobody
knows about it.
The CDC never mentions it.
It's the only non-geneticvaccine out there.
Speaker 1 (44:03):
Right.
Speaker 3 (44:05):
If I personally, if I had a gun put to my head right
now and I had to take a vaccine,far and away it'd be Novavax.
Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
I forget his name.
You probably know.
But the gentleman who was sortof the founder or the leader or
the pioneer of the mRNAtechnology came out very early
on and said this is not how thisis supposed to be used.
This is going to be a problem.
It's not going to be healthy.
Of course the information wasall suppressed.
I'd never said anything on myshow because I was more
(44:38):
concerned about liability etcetera.
But I told my friends andfamily if you have to get it
because, look, i don't faultanyone that had to get it If you
have to feed your familybetween these companies that
said you have to get vaccinatedor you're fired and you have
family to feed and can't live onunemployment or whatever, i get
(44:59):
it.
I really do understand that.
I would tell them go get J&J orNovavax, don't do the mRNA one,
because the pioneer of mRNA hascome out and said this is going
to be bad.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
I can opine on that.
I was the only public figure inwriting who questioned the
vaccines before they came out.
You're talking to him.
Not a single person voicedtheir concerns in writing ahead
of time.
I did in a very prominent op-edin the Hill August of 2020.
I was the only doctor in theworld who questioned it.
(45:39):
Everyone else was in some typeof fear-driven trance.
It's amazing that peoplewouldn't look at this and say
wait a minute, the genetic codefor the lethal spike protein
that's going to be the vaccine.
That sounds dangerous.
I mean, it was astonishing.
So what we've learned ismessenger RNA is a complete
disaster.
(46:00):
There's been a paper written byLelani and colleagues in the
British Medical Journal sayingthe United States has had an
investment in messenger RNAsince 1985.
Tens of billions of dollars.
There's been a love affair withmessenger RNA because it's a
quick way to make a proteininside the human body.
(46:21):
However, it cannot becontrolled, cannot turn it on
and off.
Now we've learned that itdoesn't get out of the body.
At least the fullypseudo-eurodenated form, which
is visumidurna, is like apermanent installation of
genetic code in the body,producing the spike protein,
(46:42):
which causes tissue injury,organ damage, clotting, bleeding
and causes disease, to installthis genetic code in the body
and have it stay in there for aslong as we can tell right now.
It's been an absolute disaster.
Now, in 2012, our militaryresearch division called DARPA
(47:04):
launched a program called theADEPT P3 program.
It's still on their website.
It says we will end pandemicsin 60 days using messenger RNA.
You say, wait a minute.
That's before visumidurna.
How did DARPA know That was ourmilitary aspiration of using
this?
In 2017, there wasself-replicating RNA that was
(47:30):
used in vaccines for pig orswine.
Speaker 1 (47:35):
The companies have been on this genetic trail and
we've just caught up with theCOVID-19, and we've realized,
boy, the side effects aredefinitely not worth it, it
sounds like From what I'veunderstood just from following
you, is that you really came tothe medical challenges that you
(47:55):
saw through the medicaltreatment and vaccination piece.
Then later correct me if I'mwrong as you got deeper into
your study, you started todiscover the premeditation piece
and connections between Fauciand Wuhan.
What concrete proof did you seethat just that is?
(48:18):
Was there anything that justturned on the light for you and
went oh, this is way bigger thanjust improper care and
vaccination?
Speaker 3 (48:27):
Yeah, i think the big piece of evidence that still
the House Select Committee onthe coronavirus origins will not
review This should tell yousomething, are the two papers by
Ralph Barrick in VanneetManicherry University of North
Carolina, chapel Hill, in 2015?
.
The title of the paper says aSARS-like bat coronavirus is
(48:53):
poised for human emergence.
In the papers they describeNational Institutes of Health
funded US created gain afunction research grants that
were outsourced to the WuhanInstitute of Hierology.
They were shuttled there by theEcoHealth Alliance.
(49:14):
in Peter Desig.
They were shuttled over there.
The Chinese did work bycontract.
When the virus came out of Wuhan, the WHO announced that this
was early in 2020.
They want an investigative teamand they wanted a majority
member nations of the WHO tosend in investigative teams.
(49:39):
In Rear Admiral Brett Gerrard,who was on the coronavirus task
force for President Trump, henominated three eminent
independent scientists torepresent the US and go over
there.
The WHO rejected it and theysaid no, we want Peter Desig of
the EcoHealth Alliance.
I said wait a minute.
He was involved with the RalphBarrick papers.
(50:01):
He was involved in the creationof this.
Now he's going to go over andmake some determination.
This is what we've learned.
This all came out through theemails Fauci's emails that Fauci
and his boss, francis Collins,with Jeremy Ferrar, who was at
the Welcome Trust at the time,is now the Chief Scientist at
WHO, christian Anderson, atScripps Redwin Holmes at New
(50:25):
York City of Sydney, peter Desig.
They all got on a conferencecall in January of 2020 and they
said listen, we've got to comeup with a narrative here.
We can't tell people.
it came out of the lab.
They launched an intentionaldeceptive campaign.
They published 12 fraudulentpapers in the peer-reviewed
(50:48):
literature stating that thevirus came out of the fish
market in Wuhan or came out ofnature.
It was intentional.
Those individuals I namedconspired to conceal a worldwide
national security threat.
People died because of it.
They died Under the HouseSelect Committee.
(51:11):
they kept investigating.
Comer was the chair, chip Royassisted.
I talked to Chip several times.
He's from Texas.
They got to the point where theysaid it's clear, it came out of
the lab.
The National Security Agencysaid you're right, it came out
of the lab.
The FBI said yeah, it came outof the lab.
(51:33):
The Department of Energy saidyes.
Former CDC Director Redfieldsaid yes.
The CDC said yes.
The NIH Fauci Collins Emailssaid yes.
Actually, all these governmentagencies had oversight in the
Wuhan lab.
That's how far they were in.
The US Congress voted 419-0 todeclassify the documents.
(51:56):
Tell us what the US was doingin Wuhan over the years before
this came out of the lab.
Now Director of NationalIntelligence Averill Haynes,
world Economic Forum Associate,will not release the US
documents.
I have to tell you this now ispretty deep as a US problem.
(52:22):
The US created this in theChinese lab.
Now last week a whistleblower,young Chinese scientist, xiao
Cao, came out and he was sayinglisten, early in 2019 he was
approached from his former boss.
They were both at University ofTexas Medical Branch in
(52:42):
Galveston.
His boss, who now works for GSKhis boss over there so I'm
penyang at the time said listen,here's four strains of the
coronavirus.
figure out which one spreadsthe fastest and is most lethal.
This was in early 2019.
Now this kid has come out andblown this and said wait a
(53:06):
minute, now we're piecing inthis guy.
This was a US project done in alab in China.
China took it and then lookslike they operationalized it
into a real biologic threat andeither they intentionally
released it orsemi-intentionally released it,
or something happened in the lab.
Speaker 1 (53:27):
A lot of people assert now that the climate
change massive, the pull ofclimate change and the control
of climate change, which is alsovery attached to the World
Economic Forum.
Some of these climate changeleaders consistently blame the
(53:47):
growth of population and thevaccine and the virus was merely
a population reduction tool.
Is that just a conspiracytheory or do you think there's
some truth to that?
Speaker 3 (54:04):
It's so hard to ascribe motive.
One would actually have to askRalph Barak What were you
thinking when you devised thischimeric virus?
Was this first the sake ofscience?
Was this on behalf of the USmilitary to actually cause
damage to another country?
(54:24):
But no one will call RalphBarak to the US House or Senate
and ask him those questions.
No one will.
No one will even enter thosepapers into evidence.
I would want to ask Xiao Caonow is one of the four strains
you were given was at the BarakStrain was at the US invention
(54:46):
from the lab in Wuhan, china?
What we can do is we can lookat the biopharmaceutical complex
and we can look at theiraspirational statements.
Within a few months of theCOVID-19 pandemic kicking off,
klaus Schwab published a book.
That means he must have beenwriting it before the start of
the pandemic.
He said that the COVID-19crisis will be a limited window
(55:10):
to establish a new world order.
We should take him seriously.
The World Economic Forum intheir new world order does
prioritize many things,including climate change, carbon
footprints and digital currency, credit scores, various types
(55:35):
of social credit scores.
Yuval Harari, a young upstartin the World Economic Forum.
He's used the term that there'stoo many useless eaters.
He said this in the world.
Bill Gates is part of thebiopharmaceutical complex.
He's publicly uttered in a TEDTalk that one way to reduce the
(55:57):
world's population is throughmass vaccinations.
Hard to know what he meant.
Klaus Schwab, in 2017, publishedThe Fourth Industrial
Revolution.
In that book, he said that thehuman being will be transformed
They'll be transhumanism.
In The Fourth IndustrialRevolution.
(56:17):
The environment doesn't change,but human changes, he says.
In The Fourth IndustrialRevolution, its winner takes all
.
What does he mean by that?
Is Klaus Schwab the winner?
Is he taking all?
Is it the WEF?
Is it the biopharmaceuticalcomplex as we've defined it in
our book?
We don't know, but it doesn'tsound good for the common man.
Speaker 1 (56:39):
No, it doesn't.
What's interesting to me isthis country does have a history
of sponsoring or being involvedin some pretty scary medical
experiments.
I'm sure you're familiar withthe Tuskegee experiment on
hundreds of black men withsyphilis.
Dr John Money was basically thepioneer of the transgender
(57:01):
movement from John HopkinsUniversity in Baltimore.
There's several clinical trialsthat have happened.
I'm just wondering if there isa chance that this whole thing
was one big medical experiment.
Speaker 3 (57:19):
You know you'd have to ask the question.
What were they trying to learn?
Why did so many people take thevaccine?
Normally if you're doing anexperiment you give it to a
small number of people, but youbrought up Tuskegee.
Let's talk about it.
Tuskegee was in, you know, wasin done in the South, and just a
(57:46):
horrendous program by the USCDC and Public Health Service to
study syphilis in black men ina relatively isolated part of
the South.
And the atrocity there is.
Once it became widely knownthat penicillin could treat
syphilis, instead of offeringpenicillin to these men, they
(58:12):
concealed it.
They concealed penicillin fromthe men.
They offered them some uselessvitamins and supplements.
They let the men infect theirwives.
Yeah, they let the men infecttheir wives.
Their children got it.
It was congenital syphilis.
And they actually withheldethical treatment.
That was Tuskegee.
(58:32):
Our government, in the COVID-19response, withheld, impeded and
undermined effective treatment.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
I just want to ask you one more question, if you
don't mind.
What would you say that theabsolute contributor to vaccine
injury?
Is there a preexistingcondition, weakened immune
system?
Is there something peopleshould?
if people have it, they shouldright away start to work on that
to prevent that vaccine injury.
Speaker 3 (59:00):
The single greatest thing that contributes to
vaccine injury is the batch ofvaccine.
People should look up whatbatch they have.
You can look up mybadbatchcomor hotlots It's the batch.
In a paper by Schmeling andcolleagues from Denmark The
batch accounts for 75% plus ofall the variation in outcome.
So it's really not the person.
(59:21):
It's a matter of if you've gota bad batch And we think maybe
some batches have hyperconcentrated lipid,
nanoparticles in messenger RNAor they're contaminated with
C-DNA or other visiblecontaminants.
But it's really a productproblem, it's not a person
problem.
Any medical problem that peoplehave can get far worse with the
vaccine.
So, for instance, if they'vehad a stroke or blood clots, oh
(59:43):
boy can that get worse with thevaccine.
Heart disease, like heartblockages, bypass surgery, prior
heart attacks, prior stroke.
Neurologic disease, likemultiple sclerosis, for instance
.
Neuropathies can get way worse.
Like Eric Clapton, he had abaseline neuropathy got way
worse with the vaccine.
Well studied there.
And then immunologic problemsautoimmunity people who already
(01:00:08):
have systemic lupus, rheumatoidarthritis, other autoimmune
problems.
So we just have to watch out.
Vaccine makes people sick.
15% of people who take thevaccine have some new medical
illness.
According to a Zogby surveylast summer, it's been the worst
health event for America, forsure, wow.
Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Well, thank you so much, Dr McCullough.
You have been fantastic, as youare with all your other
interviews and all your other TVspots.
You are truly a wealth ofknowledge and we are very
blessed to have you on the show.
Thank you very much for yourtime.
Speaker 3 (01:00:44):
Well, thank you so much And remember to follow me
on my website,petermculloughmdcom.
I'm the Chief ScientificOfficer of the Wellness Company
twchealthcom, my podcast,america Outlaw Talk, radio
McCullough Report, substackCourageous Discourse Book
Courage to Face COVID-19.
And, of course, you'll see meout in the major media almost
every day.
(01:01:04):
I'm not going to rest untilthis crisis is over.
Again, i'm Dr Peter McCullough.
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (01:01:10):
Man is my mind blown.
That interview was way moreintense and jam-packed with
information than I ever couldhave expected.
This man is truly, trulybrilliant And I hope all of you
are feeling just as excitedabout it as I am disgusting.
(01:01:32):
What happened with COVID?
And they're trying to push itunder the rug and cover it up,
and we have to remind peopleevery day that this was not a
pandemic.
This was a planned democ by theboys up in the World Economic
Forum.
But there you go, folks.
You heard it here first.
I'm Chad Law, reminding you ofwhat Reagan once said The
(01:01:54):
American dream of human progressthrough freedom and equality of
opportunity in competitiveenterprise is still the most
revolutionary idea in the worldtoday.
It's also the most successful.
Amen, none of that Marxist BS.
God bless you, president Reagan, and may God save America.
Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
You just listened to the Last Gay Conservative
podcast hosted by Chad Law.
Please visit us atlastgayconservativecom for this
episode and others.
We're also on Spotify, applePodcasts, u2, and wherever you
listen.
If you like the show, pleaselike, subscribe and share.
Find us on social.
At Last Gay Conservative, weproudly support the following
(01:02:52):
causes the Convention of StatesAction, the National Rifle
Association, the HeritageFoundation and Big Brothers Big
Sisters of America.
Disclaimer the views andopinions expressed in this
program are those of thespeakers and do not necessarily
reflect the views or positionsof any entities they represent.
The Last Gay Conservative is aproduction of Ben Wright Media.
(01:03:14):
All rights reserved 2022.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com