Texas State Senator Bob Hall held an online meeting with a number of doctors this past Friday, in response to an Texas Department
of State Health Services conference that had just happened, with a Dr. John
Hellerstedt. The doctors on Senator Hall’s online call took issue with many of
the DSHS statements. Each of the doctors spoke for 5-10 minutes and then may have answered a question or two. The first of these was Dr. Peter McCullough, and I’ll
quote him at length here below. But the second doctor said something I’ll use
as today’s theme.
 |
| screenshot from Senator Bob Hall's (upper right) panel of boots-on-the-ground doctors |
Dr. Ben Edwards (middle right in the screenshot above) said people need to get their information
from trusted sources. People who believe very differently from me, particularly
related to the pandemic, maybe also other issues, say that same thing. It’s
just that they trust different sources. So how do you tell who is trustworthy? Maybe
it should be someone with a track record of being right.
Dr. Edwards points out that we have some history now, with the
pandemic, of people who have said things and been either accurate or inaccurate.
He says those who have proven inaccurate multiple times tend to say things that
instill fear. We should use some common sense, and trust the immune system God
gave us; it works. But, if you’re stressed to the point of overwhelm by fear,
that’s actually bad for your immune system. “So, be careful who you’re letting
your ears listen to.”
Sometimes you have to try out a source for a while, be open
to the possibility they could go either way, until you know more. The truth
tends to come out eventually.
So that’s the approach I’m using here. I’m referencing real
doctors, with clinical experience, who are citing their experience along with
actual scientific data. Rule of thumb: If you have a source that accusingly says, “Follow the
science,” and then doesn’t provide you with original sources to the scientific
data, maybe they’re not really credible.
If you’ll recall, Dr. Peter McCullough is a well-respected Texas doctor, who covers the gamut of experience. He teaches. He specializes in
cardiology and internal medicine. He sees patients and treats for COVID-19. And he has spent the last
year dedicated to treating COVID-19. He has written more peer-reviewed articles
on SAR-COV-2 (COVID-19) than anyone else—to date, 47, plus two seminal papers
on how to treat COVID-19 to avoid hospitalization and death. He edits two medical
journals. So, we’re not talking about “some discredited doctor.”
 |
Dr. Peter McCullough
screenshot from here |
When I first heard him, he spoke almost entirely about
treatment options—of which there are many, but which are squelched and censored
for reasons it’s hard to fathom. He is not an anti-vaxxer—as long as we’re
talking about a safe vaccine. However, now he’s starting to come out and say,
the COVID-19 vaccines are not safe.
Dr. McCullough says,
The brief update is that we had crushed our curves early in
January, before there was any vaccine effect, and we had a nice low plateau
through the spring. And then what was born out of vaccination was the Delta
variant. And it came out of India after use of the Sinovac vaccine. [Sinovac
is a Chinese vaccine.]
And an important analysis from Mayo Clinic and from Boston by
Nissan and colleagues has shown that, when more than 25% of the population is
vaccinated, it promotes the generation of mutant strains.
Hmm. We have more than half of the population vaccinated now—52%
in Texas, higher I believe in the US as a whole.
Dr. McCullough explains that in January we had 14 different
strains of the virus. In May we had only 6, but only 2% were Delta. In July—and
this presentation was July 30th—it was 83% Delta.
That’s weird, that other variants are subsumed by this one—unless
that’s actually a response to a vaccine over-prevalence.
He does say—unlike the DSHS—that it’s far less dangerous
that the original we saw in New York and Milan last year; it’s very responsive
to treatment protocols that he recommends, and that many are using around the
world with great success. In his practice he says, “I haven’t had anyone close
to needing hospitalization. Not like last year.” In another disagreement with
DSHS, he notes that the Delta variant is only slightly more infectious—in a test tube; but in
human populations it’s not more infectious than the original.
It’s not more contagious, and it’s not more virulent. So, I’m
surmising, if you’re being told otherwise, they’re not looking at the actual
science, and they’re saying things to instill fear. [The Delta variant Q&A
page on the Texas DSHS website, then, isn’t citing the science, but it is
instilling fear.]
All right, the case rate plummeted in January, when very few
had yet received the vaccine—about 7%. That means the vaccine was not the cause
of the plummet. Likely it was herd immunity from those who had gotten the disease
and recovered; that was happening before the vaccine had a chance to cause an effect.
But the more people who got vaccinated, the more issues with
the Delta variant. That’s something to think about.
Back in January, Dr. McCullough actually had a high
percentage of patients getting the vaccine—on their own; he wasn’t recommending
it except in a few of the elderly infirm. But he says,
We had a disturbing signal where we had 186 deaths by January
22nd certified by the CDC. That was more than the 150 we would
expect for a large-scale program like this. And since that time the deaths have
skyrocketed. We’re now over 10,000 certified deaths by the CDC.
And last week there was a CMS whistleblower lawsuit filed
that extrapolates from CMS data out to potentially 45,000 Americans killed
after the vaccine.
And external analysis by McLachlan in London and by Rose in
Israel have shown about 50% of the deaths occur within 48 hours, 80% within a
week, and 86% have no other explanation.
It looks like the vaccine indeed has caused the death,
because the vaccines cause a dangerous production of the spike protein in the
body, and some people probably take up too much of the genetic material and
have too high a spike of the dangerous protein in their bloodstream. So it’s
pathophysiologically possible.
OK, so the vaccines are causing harm. He’s only referring
here to deaths. But there are other problems.
Dr. Richard Bartlett, one of the
doctors on Senator Hall’s panel, points out that other possible dangers from
the vaccine are not even told to patients, so how could they possibly give
informed consent—when they aren’t informed? These issues include Guillain-Barré—which
is a risk with every vaccine, including the COVID vaccines. And there’s transverse myelitis,
myloencephalitis, stroke, heart attack. He doesn’t mention miscarriage and
infertility, which Dr. McCullough and others have mentioned elsewhere, and a couple of other things listed on the VAERS website. Anyway,
when they leave these things out, they’re not informing you, so you have the ability
to give an informed consent.
Back to the Delta issue. Dr. McCullough passes on the report
about Israel and elsewhere, where the vaccine has failed to protect against the
Delta variant:
So, as we sit here today, now Israel reports that 80% of
their cases inferred to be Delta have occurred in those who were fully
vaccinated. It’s about 40% of those in the United Kingdom. And now we’re having
reports all over the United States that in fact the vaccine has failed. And
about half of the patients, indeed, have been fully vaccinated and now they
have COVID-19….
It looks like the vaccines almost certainly don’t cover the problem
that we have right now, which is the delta variant.
And there’s a great fear that, if we push for a mass
vaccination now, that we’ll actually have an increased risk for COVID, because
the vaccinated individuals, it looks like they can carry it and spread it. And
we see that from four events:
· One was at a wedding in Houston, Texas, where
everybody was vaccinated.
· The other one was a plane flight of Democratic lawmakers
that flew to Washington. Everyone was vaccinated.
· Then a large British naval vessel, 3,700 sailors fully vaccinated. [about 100 contracted COVID out of 3,700 crewmembers; all
had been fully vaccinated.]
All of them contracted COVID. We believe it was probably Delta.
It was obvious breakthroughs [breakthrough cases are cases after vaccination]. And then a report from Fahrenholtz and colleagues
from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston has shown it, that in fact someone
fully vaccinated can indeed get Delta, carry it, and then pass it to someone
else. So, vaccinating our health workers and other populations right now is not
a wise idea. It’s going to cause more harm than good.
Senator Hall asked a clarifying question about connection
between vaccinations and variants: Can the Delta variant be attributed to the vaccine itself? Here’s Dr. McCullough's answer:
That’s correct. And in fact, anytime we put pressure
on the population with vaccination, we’re going to spur another variant. We’re
seeing a worrisome sign out of California now with the Epsilon variant, and it
looks like it’s because of vaccination, too much vaccination with Pfizer,
Moderna, and J&J. So, if we keep vaccinating the population, we’re going to
keep promoting these variants. And our great fear is, sooner or later, we are
going to get a stronger variant, and we’re going to be in trouble.
Then the Senator asked about the move back toward mask
wearing and social distancing, wondering if that meant government sources know “this
vaccine is not really effective on the Delta variant.” Dr. McCullough answers,
I think there’s a general recognition the vaccines are
failing.
The one thing that’s clear, though, is that natural immunity
is not. There hasn’t been anybody who has natural immunity who’s gotten the
Delta variant.
You would hope that would reassure anyone who suffered
through and recovered; they have no need for a vaccine—and, he adds, they have “no
risk of getting Delta or any other form of COVID.”
One more question from the Senator referred to the presentation
earlier in the day from DSHS, claiming that “the immunity level is greater and
lasts longer from vaccinations than the natural immunity post COVID”: true or
not? Dr. McCullough answers,
No, the CDC had 10,000 breakthrough cases, even with the
earlier variants, by the end of April. 10,000 cases. They had zero cases in the
naturally immune. So it’s zero versus 10,000. There’s no question that in the
United States and elsewhere natural immunity is far superior to vaccine immunity.
I trust Dr. McCullough. And I can get quite a lot of data
and links to studies on his group’s website, AAPSonline.org. I tried finding
reference data on the Texas DSHS site; even under resources, where they list
every study from the last year, there is only one related to COVID-19, and it’s
not very useful. So they make a lot of claims—and you’re just supposed to trust
them because they’re the government? Trust doesn’t work that way.
On another interview I heard with Dr. McCullough this week, he talks
about three main myths concerning COVID. He lays out several of the myths—a polite word for untruths:
 |
| Dr. Peter McCullough interviewed on the X22 Report |
· That there is asymptomatic spread (see research
paper by CAO and another by Madewell), and that there should be testing of asymptomatic
people.
· That masks help stop the spread (12 trials
culminated in the DANMASK-19 trial).
· That there are no treatments for COVID-19.
He says it’s a myth, known since almost the beginning of the
pandemic, that people without symptoms spread the illness. That’s not how it
works. If you’ve got symptoms, then you can be shedding. In the very small
percentage of people who might have the disease without symptoms, that means
their body is building up antibodies against it, and they can’t spread it
anyway.
In this segment he also mentions testing of asymptomatic
people—which was always a bad idea. The tests weren’t designed for that. They
come up with a huge number of false positives when used on people without the
disease. In fact, that could account for a large percentage of listed cases, exaggerating the prevalence of the disease. People
should never have been tested at all until they got symptoms.
As for masks, he wears them as a doctor, in surgery or in close
contact with patients. It’s not really to protect him from them; it’s to protect a patient from the
sudden sneeze or cough, which could spread a number of viruses and bacteria.
However, the mask (and he’s referring to an N-95 respirator) only filters out.3 microns or larger; the coronavirus is .1 microns. It doesn’t work. And there
are studies now that clearly say so.
The issue that is strangest is the refusal to accept that
there are many effective treatments. Doctors who treat patients—instead of
telling them to wait until they’re sick enough for a hospital—have been using
these with great success, and have built up volumes of data. About the
prejudice against hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, he points out that there
are other medicines—medicines that actually don’t work—and nobody attacks them.
A doctor is free to use them on a patient, even though they’re useless. But the
historically very safe—and we now know very effective—HCQ and ivermectin are
attacked. In some places, HCQ was stockpiled and then not allowed to be used.
In one African country, the largest production plant of HCQ outside Taiwan, was
burned down. In several places doctors could lose their licenses for treating
COVID-19 with these drugs—even if the patient was satisfied that they worked.
Why the attacks only on the drugs that work?
 |
Dr. Richard Bartlett
screenshot from here |
Dr. Richard
Bartlett, from the panel, has been using inhaled budesonide with patients. That drug seems to
have gone under the radar and avoided the persecution of some of the others. He
referred to two Oxford University randomized controlled trials—the gold
standard for science and medicine, using budesonide. These are called the
STOIC
(STerOids in COVID-19) trial and the
PRINCIPLE trial. These concluded that 90% of
hospitalizations, ER visits, and urgent care visits could be prevented with
early use of this one medication. In fact, the STOIC trial was shut down early, because
it was considered unethical to give a placebo to a patient, risking their
death, when there was a known safe and effective treatment.
Dr. Bartlett mentions another study, from the NIH database
from 2017; its from the Saudi Journal of Anesthesia. This study showed four
ways nebulized budesonide benefited patients on ventilators in the ICU:
·
Their blood oxygen levels will improve.
·
The edema or swelling in the lung tissue reverses.
·
The scarring and remodeling in the lung tissue
stops.
·
And the cytokines that they measured plummet in
the bloodstream.
He compares the 90% effectiveness of this one drug with the
39% effectiveness of the vaccine—as found in Israel. He says, “I’d say that 90%
with just one of those medicines is better than 39% with a vaccine.”
There was one story I thought was very persuasive, giving a human face to the data:
I’ll tell you one case example. In Odessa, Texas, we had a
patient that was on 100% oxygen on the ventilator, a PEEP [positive end
respiratory pressure] of 16 on the ventilator. Her oxygen saturation was
80%, and when they started budesonide nebulizer treatments three times a day,
in one week she was off the ventilator.
The husband had been asked to give hospice orders three
times, and he had refused, because his wife made him promise, when she was dropped
off at the ER, that they would do everything they could to save her life so she
could be here for the children. And so he refused to give the order to let her
die and instead pushed back for budesonide. She was off the ventilator in one
week, home with her family in two weeks.
And so we have effective early outpatient treatment, but we
also have tools that can help people in the emergency room, and we have tools
that can help people even if they’re in the ICU with late disease. And so it’s
not over till someone stops breathing.
This is all good news. The only bad news is that government
sources are lying to us, making things seem worse than they are, building up
the vaccines as much safer and more effective than they are, and are otherwise
manipulating us.
Dr. McCullough defines propaganda for us (at 8:50 in this interview):
Propaganda is the intentional promotion of false information to
influence others.
We need to worry when that's what our government officials are doing, like now.
There’s more we learned from these doctors. Senator Hall
summarized his panel’s discussion, with the hope that that truth would take away some
of the fear.
 |
Texas State Senator Bob Hall
screenshot from here |
In spite of what the media is telling us, and the government
as they emphasize how dangerous the Delta variant is, that’s just totally
false. It’s false information. It is only slightly more infectious, and it’s
certainly far less deadly…. Look at where we are with the death rate. It has
stayed flat now for months. And you’re absolutely right when you’ve said that
you go back and look when it started to drop in cases, it was well before the
vaccine could have had any possible effects. So putting out a piece of information
that says that the drop in infections was a result of vaccinations is just
false and misleading.
And that for healthy people, it’s really clear, which much
has been said, for those who know firsthand in treating people that the risk of
the vaccine is far greater than the benefits that might come from it,
particularly if you’re a healthy person. That the vaccinations should be aimed
at those people that are high risk with other morbidities, extenuating factors,
and certainly not children.
And that there have been clearly demonstrated, with what’s happened
out there, not just here in Texas but in other states, that there are safe,
inexpensive, and effective treatments for the COVID symptoms that have been
proven to work, and so that there’s actually no need for having a vaccine.
Senator Hall lists some of the untruths spoken by DSHS
earlier in the day:
The one where it said the vaccine is undeniably needed to
prevent the spread of COVID. Think the
data shows that the vaccine had nothing to do with stopping it but could
possibly have everything to do with prolonging it right now.
That the known benefits from the vaccine far outweigh known
risk. That’s absolutely—the data does not support that. It’s just the opposite.
The risk is much higher with the vaccine.
And that they are amazingly safe and effective. I think the
data, the number of people that have died, particularly the problems and the
health of younger folks, is, they are not safe, and what we’re seeing is they
have little to no effect. That the natural immunity is what is getting us out
of this.
He makes a final recommendation that I found interesting,
and hadn’t thought of:
I don’t know about what you will do, but I can tell you, if I
or a member of my family were to see a doctor on COVID and be tested positive,
and they would tell me, go home, take a couple of aspirin, and come back if you
get a little sicker—which have been told to a number of people, and is still
being told, based on the phone calls I’ve gotten recently—I will tell you, I
would take the step of reporting them for malpractice to the Texas Medical
Board. I think the same thing that was being done to doctors that were using hydroxychloroquine
early on. Because we need all of our medical community to step up on this.
There was more. I encourage listening to the presentations
yourself, and consider finding and reading the data. Asking questions, seeking
the truth, and making a judgment call on when you’ve found it are things we all
really need to do. I wouldn’t categorically refuse to believe a government
source—if they can show you the data to back up what they’re saying. But I
wouldn’t simply take their word for it. That hasn’t gone well for us this past
year and a half. It probably never did, but this got our attention.
