After my last blog, I heard a fair amount more from Dr.
Peter McCullough, whom I referenced in that post. And Tucker Carlson, whom I
also referenced. Dr. McCullough was a guest on Carlson’s Fox Nation show Tucker Carlson Today, which unfortunately requires a paid membership (which I
obtained in order to hear it).
Carlson had someone send him the testimony of Dr. McCullough
in front of the Texas Legislature a few weeks ago. I listened to that too. Dr.
McCullough is very reputable—Tucker suggests you Google him so you know for
yourself. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. But repeatedly he said, “Something is
up. And it’s worldwide.” So I’d like to go over what is up.
 |
Dr. Peter McCullough testifies to the Texas Senate HHS Committee March 11, 2021.
screenshot from here |
WHY DON’T WE HEAR ABOUT TREATMENTS?
The original question that interested Carlson is, Why, if
there are treatments, are we not hearing about them?
We went over some of the available treatments in the last
post. But the question of why the knowledge of those treatments is suppressed
is the puzzlement. Dr. McCullough doesn’t speculate on what is going on, beyond
maybe group fear.
There’s a timeline issue he illustrates with this from
Australia:
PM: And Tucker, it’s worldwide. Something is up. Listen to
this. Queensland, Australia—you’ve probably been there. April [2020]—they put
on the books as a law—as a law!—if a doctor attempts to help a patient with
COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, that doctor will be put in jail for six
months.
TC: What?
PM: Yes. In April they put it on the books.
TC: Why?
PM: Something is up. If you look at the TGA. Let’s not fry
the US agencies. So let’s look at the TGA, the FDA equivalent in Australia. And
Australia is interesting. They’ve been kind of spared of COVID-19. They’ve been
in these draconian lockdowns. They have this huge, susceptible population.
They’re all distributed. They’ve been in fear for 14 months. The TGA has some
guidelines for COVID-19. It must have two dozen recommendations:
·
Don’t use hydroxychloroquine.
·
Don’t use Ivermectin.
·
Don’t use steroids.
·
Don’t use anticoagulants.
·
Don’t use—
They list everything you should not do. It’s like, what should
you do? Net answer: nothing.
TC: But, OK, so COVID-19 became known to the West in January
of 2020. So that was one year and four months ago. OK, so how could—with such a
short period of time—the health regulators of Australia know, to the point
where they codified it in a regulation, that hydroxychloroquine is not an
effective therapy against COVID-19? Like, how could that be known? It couldn’t
be known. Correct?
PM: It couldn’t be known.
 |
Dr. Peter McCullough (left) is interviewed by Tucker Carlson May 7, 2021.
screenshot from here (may require paid membership) |
MORE TIMELINE ODDITIES
Let me add a couple of things to that puzzlement. Much of
the world, still, believes a fake Lancet study, which was withdrawn
almost directly afterward—well, here’s what Dr. McCullough said about that
study:
Lancet published a fake paper that came from a fake
database that implied that hydroxychloroquine hurt people in the hospital. And
we looked at it. In two seconds I knew it was a fake paper. They had 70,000
patients in a database that had detailed drug information back in December and
going forward; we didn’t have that back then. Mean age was 50— 49; we don’t
hospitalize people at age 49. This went through peer review. It was agreed upon
by all the editors. It hung up in Lancet for two weeks and scared the
bejabbers out of the world by using hydroxychloroquine…. And this is the most
frequently used, widely relied upon drug in the world… for treating COVID-19.
But something’s going on.
When asked about the fake data in the Lancet study, Dr.
McCullough adds this:
PM: Well, it came from a company called Surgisphere, which
rapidly dissolved. The Lancet published a retraction that said, “You
know, we just couldn’t verify the data, and so we’re retracting it.” No
apologies. No explanation of how this could have influenced world events. It
greatly influenced the FDA staffers, who wrote an FDA warning. It said, “Well,
listen, we think hydroxychloroquine causes harm. Doctors shouldn’t use this.”
It was based upon a fake paper. This went to the American Medical Association,
then the Board of Pharmacies.
TC: Is this a real story?
PM: This is a real story. And doctors were writing
prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine, and all of a sudden their medical
licenses are being threatened. There have been cases all over the country of
doctors trying to help patients. And hydroxychloroquine is one of four to six
drugs we use for COVID-19. It is extraordinary.
The Lancet study is still used. I was aware it was
fake back a year ago. But people are still citing it. I heard
the very sensible Niall Ferguson on a recent Uncommon Knowledge
interview surrounding the release of his book Doom: The Politics of
Catastrophe. Here’s a segment from the interview:
Peter Robinson: Here’s another quotation. The press, from Doom:
"If a population is to make good choices, good information is vital."
Vital! "The fact that President Trump retweeted a video of a
hydroxychloroquine claim, a clip that was viewed more than 13 million times in
social media, neatly encapsulated the nature of the dual plague the world
confronted in 2020." Close quote. First of all, just remind us about that
hydroxychloroquine, if I'm pronouncing it correctly. Could you just remind us
about that incident? What was that all about?
Niall Ferguson: Hydroxychloroquine was supposed to have some
effect, prophylactic or possibly also as a remedy against COVID-19. President
Trump heard about this. The story did the rounds. There were some very shaky, I
believe French studies suggesting that there might be some benefit. And he
began, along with a great many people on social media and elsewhere, to
recommend it as a prophylactic or as a treatment.
Donald Trump (video): I happen to be taking it. I happen to
be taking it.
Reporter (video): Hydroxychloroquine?
Donald Trump (video): I'm taking it, hydroxychloroquine.
Niall Ferguson: As soon as any rigorous studies were done, it
turned out that there was not only no benefit, but in fact, potential harm from
taking hydroxychloroquine. And that was just one of a great many fake stories
that did the round.
So, a smart person, who has done research on the topic, in
fact written a book on it, still thinks the Lancet study, which was fake, was a “rigorous study.” There was one other study—in which
they waited to give hydroxychloroquine to the seriously ill hospitalized COVID
patients, and then they gave them several times the recommended dosage—without the
other drugs in combination that were found to be working together—and killed
those patients, then announced to the world that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous.
I was aware of the flaws in these studies at the time. Both bogus. But Niall
Ferguson—even after a year of additional successful use by doctors like Peter
McCullough and thousands of others—still believes those fake stories. That’s
weird.
Ferguson mentioned some very shaky French study. That was
odd too. I’m guessing it was a Dr. Raoult, who up until the moment he recommended hydroxychloroquine had been highly renowned;
suddenly he was scorned. Only for recommending HCQ, as far as I can tell. I
heard about his recommending HCQ—the day before President Trump mentioned it
among other possible remedies that he believed showed promise. The press for
some reason focused in on HCQ—told the story about a woman who used fish tank
cleaner on herself and her husband (killed him) because a version of HCQ was an
ingredient—among several other toxic chemicals; the press claimed this was
proof Trump’s recommendation was dangerous. Remember that?
Then, when you’re looking at oddities in the timeline, there
was the change in HCQ from a safe over-the-counter medication in France to being suddenly prescription only and
possibly unsafe—just ahead of the pandemic. I wrote about this here.
Dr. McCullough talks some more about timeline oddities:
And in fact there are pieces of the timeline that are suggesting
that something is very wrong going on in the world. And whatever’s going on, it
is worldwide. It is not just US. Things are worse in Canada. There are anguishing
doctors and nurses in norther EU, and in Scandinavia about euthanasia and
having the seniors literally just be euthanized. There’s some horrible things
going on.
For a profession that say, "First, do no harm," this is both puzzling and disturbing.
I think one of the strangest parts of the timeline is the
planning conference right ahead of the actual pandemic, and some other planning
prior to that. I wrote this in July 2020:
In September 2019 [Bill] Gates participated in a “pandemic
exercise,” called Event201, which was specific about response to a coronavirus
outbreak—one month before it appears to have begun in Wuhan.
In 2018 a video called “A Simulation for a Global Flu Pandemic,” was made by The Institute for
Disease Modeling, posted courtesy of the Gates Foundation, showing a flu virus
originating in China and spreading across the globe, killing millions—eerily
similar to what has actually happened.
In 2017, just as the Trump administration was beginning,
Dr. Anthony Fauci spoke at a conference,
predicting that sometime during this administration’s term there was a high
likelihood of an infectious disease outbreak. He was pushing for funding in preparation.
WHY ARE DOCTORS NOT ACTING LIKE DOCTORS?
 |
AAPS COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
available here |
What seems strangest of all, perhaps, to Dr. McCullough is the
refusal of doctors to treat sick patients. He helped develop a protocol last
spring. He shared it, and it was the most widely downloaded piece in the
American Journal of Medicine on COVID—still is. That was published in August of
2020. In November of 2020 Dr. McCullough testified before the US Senate. I
believe by that time or shortly afterward, he helped publish the
AAPS guidelines
for treating COVID. Still, most Americans are unaware that COVID-19 is
treatable for outpatients. And most patients still get told to wait at home a
couple of weeks until they’re sick enough for hospitalization.
When asked why the hesitancy to treat, Dr. McCullough says,
PM: The innocent explanation is, it’s driven out of fear. And
the fear is, you know, “We don’t know how to deal with this. We don’t have
large clinical trials. We don’t have the intellectual support to support our
group think.” And then, “Because of this, we are going to err on the side of
doing nothing,” almost as if we’re dealing with some type of contagion that
you’d read in a Michael Crichton book.
It could have been all fear driven. But I have to tell you,
as a doctor, that’s not in my moral DNA to let people die without treatment. Of
course I’m going to try some steroids or some Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine.
I’m going to add Lovenox and some other drugs. Of course I am. And sure enough,
myself and others found out over time, we can get people through the illness.
I wonder what the “not innocent explanation” might be.
There seems to have been a “group think” among doctors and
public health officials worldwide. Normally they collaborate, they try drugs
they think might work, based on past similar illnesses. They share their
results. They learn and get better. What they do not do—ever—is sit back and
wait for permission to treat until some public health organization “rules” on
what’s allowable. Except this time. Something is up.
He found that there are groups in the US—the Frontline
Doctors and others; there’s the Bird group in England, Panda in South Africa,
Treatment Domicilari in Italy, COVID Medical Network in Australia. But we don't have the CDC, NIH, or WHO doing anything but obstructing. He says,
We’ve got like-minded people that say, “Listen, treat this
early at home.” But we don’t have a single bit of regulatory support. We don’t
have a single bit of your conventional medical society support.
ABOUT THE VACCINES, THE NUREMBERG CODE, AND COERCION
Refusal to treat is not the only oddity; there’s also the
oddity about how the vaccines have been handled. Dr. McCullough is pro-vaccine.
But it depends on the patient. One thing he’s clear on is that there should be
no coercion or lack of consent. This comes out of the Nuremberg Code, which
came out of WWIII, where atrocities in testing on captive humans was done. He
says,
We live by it every day. It says the person—the
individual—gets to decide what happens to their body. They can take advice, but
what happens to their body—without pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal.
This is really important.
A friend sent me an article just this past week referring to
violations of the Nuremberg Code. It shows what the code is, and then
describes a suit against entities in violation. Here’s the introductory summary
of the claims:
 |
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
screenshot from video embedded in this article |
A team of over 1,000 lawyers and
over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal
proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against
humanity. Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for
doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test
was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the
PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that
any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result.
This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases/”infections” tracked
by the use of this faulty test.
In addition to the flawed tests and
fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in
violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949
Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not
necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited.
According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected
persons is a grave breach of the Convention.
The “experimental” vaccine is in
violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for
those who seek to violate these International Laws.
The “vaccine” fails to meet the
following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a
medical “experiment” and trial:
The list, with some detail, includes these points:
·
Provides immunity to the virus.
·
Protects recipients from getting the virus.
·
Reduces deaths from the virus infection.
·
Reduces circulation of the virus.
·
Reduces transmission of the virus.
And then the ten violated codes are listed, followed by a
video
I don’t know whether Dr. McCullough knows anything about
this case, only that he mentioned the Nuremberg Code, and his main point was
that consent was being violated. He and Carlson talk about this in relation to
coercive pressure today:
PM: And as we move forward in research, we wanted to learn
from this Nazi research, which was awful— We had a terrible situation in the
United States—the Tuskegee experiments, where, for research, people ought to
have informed consent. And they can freely participate or not. And we follow
that in clinical medicine. This is really important. If a Jehovah’s Witness
says, “Listen, I’m not taking a blood transfusion,” we can’t force it into
their body. If we have a patient who says, “Doctor, I’m not taking a vaccine,”
we cannot—"without pressure, coercion, or reprisal.” We can’t have
somebody say, “Listen, I’m going to lose my job.” That’s pretty strong
coercion, don’t you think?
TC: Yeah. You can’t make a living. You can’t eat. Yeah,
that’s about the strongest possible—I mean, short of physical harm. That’s the
strongest.
PM: How about, “I can’t go to school”? “I can’t get my
college degree?”
TC: “Your children can’t be educated if you don’t obey”? So
that’s— I think that’s the point that all decent people have considered at some
point in the last week or two, as we’re learning that coercion is real, and
that you will be punished unless you obey. My question to you, though, as a
physician, is, that is in direct contradiction of the Nuremberg Code. Is that
something that all physicians are familiar with?
PM: Yes.
I’m trying to get perspective here. The vaccines are
approved on an EUA basis—emergency use authorization, which means no guarantee
of either safety or efficacy. Excluded from the trials are COVID-recovered
people, pregnant women, women of childbearing age who can’t verify
contraception, children under 18, people with compromised immune systems, or
people who have had a previous vaccine reaction.
And yet there is a push for EVERYBODY to get the vaccine. College
students are often being required to get the vaccine in order to return to
classes in the fall. Similar requirements are happening in some public schools, even though children
are apparently resistant both to getting the disease and spreading it. And the
policies aren’t even written yet—so these school officials haven’t even thought through giving
exemptions to people who are in categories excluded from the trials.
Dr. McCullough calls out a hospital here in Houston—and I
verify we’ve heard about it here. At first they were offering employees $500 to
encourage them to take the vaccine—a coercion in itself that would not be
allowed in a clinical trial situation. Not enough healthcare workers took them
up on the offer to satisfy them. If the carrot doesn’t work, you try the stick.
So they threatened firing. Some of the employees got together and pointed out
that some of them didn’t want it, didn’t need it, and some couldn’t take it.
The hospital administrators said, “You’re fired.”
There’s this point Dr. McCullough makes about why we take
vaccines:
Think about this: We always vaccinate for the purpose of
protecting the individual—because the individual takes on the risk. We never
vaccinate an individual to protect somebody else—never. Because that’s asking
the individual to take the risk for someone else’s benefit.
I’m feeling this coercion personally, because I’m threatened
with not being able to travel, not being able to enter stores, not being able
to attend a large gathering like a concert or ball game, maybe not being
allowed to attend someone’s wedding. Some doctors even refuse to treat patients who come into the waiting room unless they've already had their vaccinations. This prejudice against me is not because I have spread or will spread the disease—but because I am in a
category that cannot and should not get the vaccine. I’m supposed to ignore that
and risk myself—for what? For the sake of keeping society safe—when I’ve
managed to spread exactly zero COVID germs whatsoever during this very bad
year? I’m dangerous and should be punished? Should I wear a yellow star to
brand myself as subhuman, like we’ve seen before in coercive tyrannies?
And why is there pressure to get everyone to take the
vaccine? Especially why for those who have long-term natural immunity already?
Dr. McCullough is very clear that COVID-recovered have the
best immunity. The COVID-recovered can’t get the virus again, and they can’t
spread it. They have immunity to all the strains. The vaccine is designed only for
the “wild” virus, originally from China, but that one has pretty much
disappeared from the US at this point. That’s why the vaccine will only be
partially effective. He recommends getting a T-cell test, or an antibody test,
or both, to show proof of immunity. That ought to be accepted. “They should get
a gold passport,” if you absolutely have to show proof somewhere.
Dr. McCullough doesn’t, through all of this, get more
conspiratorial than saying, “Something is up. And it’s worldwide.” I can’t solve
that puzzle either. But there are far too many things that have made this
pandemic plague us in ways it didn’t have to. There’s the control of society.
There’s the refusal to allow treatments. There’s the coercive pressure to
vaccinate. There’s the timeline, making it appear that this was all planned.
If that is so, who did the planning? And why would so many
people blithely go along with their plans when people are unnecessarily dying
and society is unnecessarily suffering economic and social disaster? How did they
get all the media to buy in?
And how do we heal from this?
For another day, I’d like to know, is it related to
other things we can’t explain?
· Election fraud—and the censorship of truth surrounding
it.
· Biden family corruption (and others in high
places)—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.
· Bad stuff happening because of policy changes
regarding the border, Israel and the Middle East, China, energy independence,
massive spending and debt—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.
· The LGBT agenda takeover of our educational
system, social institutions, and even the marketplace—and the censorship of
truth surrounding it.
· The tribalism caused by labeling everyone and
everything racist, even the country that spread the concept of equality before
the law to the rest of the world—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.
And more. I can’t say for certain there is a conspiracy. But
something is up. And it’s worldwide.
.png)
%20Bills-Bengals%20prayer.png)
%20prayer%20on%20ESPN.png)
%20more%20prayer%20on%20field.png)
