Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACC, FACP, FAHA, FASN, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA
Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine, Baylor Dallas Campus
President, Cardiorenal Society of America
Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine
Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology
Dr. McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine, Dallas, TX USA. He maintains ABIM certification in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. He practices both internal medicine including the management of common infectious diseases as well as the cardiovascular complications of both the viral infection and the injuries developing after the COVID-19 vaccine.
Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. He has 46 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill and on FOX NEWS Channel.
On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response. Dr. McCullough has had one full-year of dedicated academic and clinical efforts in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus and in doing so, has reviewed thousands of reports, participated in scientific congresses, group discussions, press releases, and has been considered among the world's experts on COVID-19.
Ping
Thanks for providing the transcript.
Once vaccinated you can’t get unvaccinated
I’m getting tired of “the jab will kill you” and “ you can get covid again” threads.
I've seen videos of dogs that will drop food or treats if a stuffed animal approaches their food dish, pretends to eat, and then drops over 'dead'. The dogs spit their food out and walk away.Not surprised, dogs get it.
The #s are forcing it on young adults and children — #ing predatory!
Nobody likes predators.
I honestly believe that any doctor who believes that people should be forced to get the jab (or coerced) should have their medical license revoked.
This guy is done. They will crucify him.
Anyone remember when DJ Trump had that presser and he said that big pharma doesnt like him? And that he might not be around?
Remember that?
Will anyone, in his right mind, knowingly inject poison into his body to “stop COVID?”
No.
And in case you were curious, I’m not going to sprinkle rat poison on my dinner, either.
Only a fool will listen to these Satanic Deep State Creeps and their incessant lies about “safe and effective” poisons.
And the big pharma vax shills will discredit everything about someone, no matter how credentialed they are.
The legitimate credentials of people who are experts in their fields mean nothing to anonymous, internet vax shills, who have very little credentials or experience themselves.
1. The first would be the temporal relationships, so I told you, in time, it's really closely related to the injection.
If the doctor understands VAERS I'm a little surprised he doesn't see the fallacy in this temporal relationship line of thought.
Since VAERS is all based on self-reporting and not on ongoing surveillance it's a given you'll see more events reported close to the vaccination date.
It's simple human nature. If some medical issue arises you'll be much more likely to connect it with a shot you got yesterday than a shot you got 10 days ago.
The only way this analysis has validity is if you actively monitor people getting the vaccine and consistently document issues, and then compare those numbers against a control group that didn't get the vaccine.
Naturally, this list will continue to grow unfortunately.
Keeping in mind that these reports are only a fraction of the data out there and only those reports that the praetorian guard media & tech have let out.
Psaki refuses to answer question on WH ‘breakthrough’ Covid cases… (07.23.2021)
‘Why do you need that information?’
Also keeping in mind, that these vaccines are NOT approved and licensed and are only available to the public at large because of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA). Each of the manufactures were given authorization to "prevent" covid. There is nothing in their EUA's about lessoning hospital stays or deaths. Only, prevention of covid.
Pfizer's EUA:
"the FDA decision is based on the totality of scientific evidence available showing that the product may be effective to prevent COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. All of these criteria must be met to allow for the product to be used in the treatment of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 EUA declaration justifying emergency use of these products, unless terminated or revoked (after which the products may no longer be used)."
Moderna's EUA: "Having concluded that the criteria for issuance of this authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act are met, I am authorizing the emergency use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19"
Janssens's EUA: "On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for emergency use of the Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 for individuals 18 years of age and older pursuant to Section 564 of the Act."
Both Moderna and Janssen's EUA's are based on preventing covid. Is this what prevention look like? Pfizer's EUA is based on "may" prevent covid. OK, some wiggle room there. If 1 in one hundred million doesn't get covid, but the other 99,999,999 do after taking their experimental shot, they can say...look, our agreement is that it may prevent covid.
These vaccines were given Emergency Authorization to be widely distributed and administered to "prevent" covid.
How many people, especially those that are not elderly or have pre-existing health concerns who have gotten the experimental medicine, would have changed their minds if they knew they had a much higher percentage chance (than being reported by the govt & the manufacturers) of getting covid, that they would have to got back to wearing a piece of cloth over their mouth and nose and be limited to large indoor (& outdoor) events anyway?
Would they take the chance of getting one or more of the reported side effects knowing the above?
Are these error rates acceptable to meet those EUA's and keep these unlicensed vaccines widely available outside a typical controlled study phase?
AFAIC, if science and honesty were the driving force, their EUA's would be revoked.
Ping
Thank you Ransom! (I do not know where you get the energy to do this!)
Thank you, ransomnote.
Is is important for every FReeper to read ransomnote’s warning and to heed it.
Dr. McCullough is meticulously credentialed.
Many of us ask, “Who should we believe?”
I choose to believe McCullough over Fauci, Biden, and Gates.