Could Early At-Home Protocols Influence COVID Outcomes?
| | |
Could Early At-Home Protocols Influence COVID Outcomes?
Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the top five most-published medical researchers in
the U.S., discusses the potentia...
- Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal
by reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead,
they’ve done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it
be corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D
- According to Dr. Peter McCullough, 85% of COVID deaths could have been
prevented had early treatment protocols been widely implemented rather than
- It appears the intense censoring and suppression of early treatments was a
strategy to promote as much fear, suffering, hospitalization and death as
possible in order to prepare the population to accept a new genre of gene
transfer technologies on a mass scale
- The overwhelming drive to get a “needle in every arm” is such that health
authorities are not even acknowledging the fact that those who have recovered
from COVID-19 and many groups have no possibility of benefiting from the
vaccine, including younger individuals, pregnant women, women of childbearing
potential, and those with immunodeficiencies
- Despite FDA warnings for myocarditis with Pfizer and Moderna and cavernous
venous thrombosis with Johnson & Johnson, the vaccine cabal keeps propaganda on
In this interview, Dr. Peter McCullough discusses the importance of early
treatment for COVID-19, and the potential motivations behind the suppression of
safe and effective treatments.
McCullough has impeccable academic credentials. He's an internist,
cardiologist, epidemiologist, a full professor of medicine at Texas A&M College
of Medicine in Dallas. He also has a master's degree in public health and is
known for being one of the top five most-published medical researchers in the
United States and is the editor of two medical journals.
Early Outpatient Treatment Is Key for Positive Outcomes
McCullough has been an outspoken advocate for early treatment for COVID. In
August 2020, McCullough's landmark paper "Pathophysiological Basis and
Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection"1 was
published online in the American Journal of Medicine.
The follow-up paper is titled "Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential
Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection
(COVID-19)"2 and was published in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in
Perhaps one of the greatest crimes in this whole pandemic is the refusal by
reigning heath authorities to issue early treatment guidance. Instead, they've
done everything possible to suppress remedies shown to work, whether it be
corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with zinc, ivermectin, vitamin D or
Patients were simply told to stay home and do nothing. Once the infection had
worsened to the point of near-death, patients were told to go to the hospital
where most were routinely placed on mechanical ventilation — a practice that
was quickly discovered to be lethal. Many doctors also seemingly panicked and
refused to see patients with COVID symptoms.
"I'm glad that I personally always treated all my patients," he says. "I wasn't
going to have the virus slaughter one of my senior citizens. And it is, I
think, terrible that none of our major academic institutions innovated with a
single protocol. To my knowledge, not a single major academic medical center,
as an institution, attempted even to treat patients with COVID-19.
But I did use my publication power, and my editorial authority, and my position
in internal medicine and some specialty medicine to publish the breakthrough
paper called 'The Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Ambulatory
Treatment of COVID-19' in the American Journal of Medicine.
It was an international effort, both community physicians and academic
physicians. And to this day, that is the most frequently downloaded paper in
the American Journal of Medicine."
Early Treatment Guidelines Have Saved Millions of Lives
In December 2020, McCullough published an updated protocol, co-written with 56
other authors who also had extensive experience with treating COVID-19
outpatients. The article, "Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential Multidrug
Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2 Infection,"3 was published
in the journal Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, of which McCullough is the
"That paper, today … is the most frequently downloaded paper from BET Journal,"
McCullough says. "It also is the basis for the American Association of
Physician and Surgeons COVID early treatment guide.4
We have evidence that the treatment guide has been downloaded and utilized
millions of times. And it was part of the early huge kick that we had in
ambulatory treatment at home towards the end of December into January, which
basically crushed the U.S. curve.
We were on schedule to have 1.7 to 2.1 million fatalities in the United States,
as estimated by the CDC and others. We cut it off at about 600,000. That still
is a tragedy. I've testified that 85% of that 600,000 could have been saved if
we would have had … the protocols in place from the start.
But suffice it to say, the early treatment heroes, and you're part of that team
Dr. Mercola, has really made the biggest impact. We have saved millions of
lives, spared millions and millions of hospitalizations, and in a sense, have
brought the pandemic now to a winnowing close."
While the World Health Organization and national health agencies have all
rejected treatments suggested by doctors for lack of large-scale randomized
controlled studies, McCullough and other doctors working the frontlines took an
empiric approach. They looked for signals of benefit in the literature.
"We didn't demand large randomized trials because we knew they weren't going to
be available for years in the future," McCullough says. "We didn't wait for a
guidelines body to tell us what to do or some medical society, because we know
they work in slow motion. We knew we had to take care of patients now."
A Global Collusion to Harm Patients
When you look at how comprehensive and intense the censoring and suppression of
early treatments were, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than this was
a strategy aimed at securing emergency use authorization (EUA) for COVID gene
To get an EUA, there cannot be any safe and effective alternatives, and since
the COVID shots are using a brand-new, never before used technology, making
sure there were no effective treatments available was crucial for the success
of the roll-out of these shots. Prestigious medical journals like The Lancet
were even caught colluding with the drug industry, publishing a completely
fabricated study on HCQ, showing it was dangerous. As noted by McCullough:
"What's so interesting is how airtight the collusion was. It was extraordinary.
Look at The Lancet paper [on HCQ]. You had a doctor from Harvard, a company
called Surgisphere that had data, you had the reviewers at Lancet, the
associate editor and the editor at Lancet. How could they all collude together
to publish a falsified paper?
When that paper came out, we looked at it. I was checking the literature very
carefully. [As editor-in-chief of two medical journals] I've reviewed more
papers and analyzed more data, I think, than anybody in the game. And I can
tell you, I looked at that paper and in two seconds, I knew it was fake. I
mean, I do this every day.
I'm also the senior associate editor for the American Journal of Cardiology.
That's the most venerated journal in our entire field. And I can tell you that
a paper like that would never get past my editorial desk because it was so
obviously fake. It was a huge sample size that we knew was not possible at that
time. And it was people in their 40s hospitalized with astronomical mortality
It was just no way that was legit. And The Lancet let that hang up there for
two weeks, scaring the entire world against hydroxychloroquine — which turns
out to be one of the safest and most effective widely utilized in people with
COVID-19. And when they took it down, it was unapologetic.
My interpretation of this is that was very intentional. What happened with
ivermectin's use in the ICU was also very intentional and a collusion ... Dr.
J.J Rashtak had used it in hundreds and hundreds of patients in Florida and
published in CHEST, one of the best pulmonary journals, that ivermectin reduced
Yet to this day, hospitals across the United States flat out refuse to use
ivermectin. Desperate patients and families have to get court orders to order
these doctors to use ivermectin. So, there's a mass mentality of almost
intentionally harming patients.
There's absolutely no grounds for doctors and administrators … to deny patients
ivermectin. There is a global collusion, specifically in U.S. hospitals, to
cause as much harm and death as conceivable. It's beyond belief … These cases
where the families had to get court orders to force the doctors and
administrators to administer a simple generic drug, these are going to be case
studies in medical ethics for decades to come."
The Goal = Mass Vaccination
As for why patient harm was a desirable thing, McCullough believes the end goal
was to secure the rollout of a mass vaccination campaign. All the propaganda
we've been fed over this past year and a half points in that direction.
"Propaganda is the dissemination of false or misleading information by people
of authority in a collusional manner. And that's exactly what's going on. We
have a propagandized campaign for mass vaccination. There's no doubt about it.
It's actually very overt … And believe me, there are hundreds of millions of
people under the propagandized spell that the COVID-19 vaccine is going to
deliver us from this crisis."
What we do not know for sure is why the World Health Organization and
governments around the world want a needle in every arm. Why are they so eager,
so relentless in their push to inject everyone with this novel gene therapy
that turns your body into a toxic spike protein factory?
The intent to vaccinate everyone is such that health authorities are not even
acknowledging the fact that staggering numbers of injuries and deaths are
occurring shortly after these injections. They're even letting children die
from these shots without any hint of slowing down the rate of injections. Why?
Our Next Task: Dispelling Vaccine Propaganda
While we've made great strides in circumventing censorship and getting the
information out about early treatment, we still face a tremendous challenge,
and that is dispelling the misinformation and confusion that surrounds the
Very clearly, there's massive collusion to suppress the truth about these gene
therapies as well. Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines, recently
spoke out about his concerns, and not only did YouTube ban the interview, but
Wikipedia also erased his name from the historical section of the mRNA vaccine.
They clearly want everyone to believe that these shots are similar to, and even
superior to, conventional vaccines. They absolutely do not want you to think of
them as gene therapy, which is what they are. Even Malone himself has made this
Malone is more than a little concerned about the coercion going on to get
people to take these injections. He's also pointed out that there's no
comprehensive system in place to prospectively capture side effects, despite
the fact that the manufacturers bypassed at least 10 to 15 years' worth of
safety studies, including toxicological studies. This too appears entirely
intentional. Again, the question is why?
"They had no system to catch the complications, but even worse, they had no
plans for safety. They had none of the traditional mechanisms for risk
mitigation … [such as] critical event committees, Data and Safety Monitoring
Boards, IRBs or Human Ethics Committees.
The public should know these are the structures that we have in place in
biomedical research. I've led two dozen Data Safety Monitoring Boards. The
co-sponsors of the U.S. vaccine program are the FDA and the CDC.
It's their obligation to have in place, from the very beginning, a Clinical
Event Committee, Data Safety Monitoring Board, and a Human Ethics Committee
[and provide] regular updates, because these committees are supposed to be
identifying signals of harm, and then make recommendations to the sponsors
about how to make the program safer.
This was the fiduciary responsibility of the FDA and the NIH. Again, this is
going to go down in regulatory history as one of the most colossal blunders of
all time. How can you do the largest clinical investigation in the history of
medicine and have no safeguards? You have no mechanisms to protect Americans
from what could happen with the vaccine program?"
Why Were Standardized Safety Protocols Omitted?
As for the motivation or reason for ignoring virtually all standardized safety
measures, McCullough says:
"There has been such a suppression of early treatment … and a complete
propagandized campaign for social distancing, wearing masks, promoting fear,
suffering, hospitalization and death. And to prepare the population for mass
vaccination, the last thing they wanted to do is have anything that could
potentially restrict the population that would be taking the vaccine.
And so, I don't think they actually wanted any safety safeguards. I thought
their goal, from the very beginning, was to try to railroad every single
individual with two legs [into getting the shot]. The most important moniker
was a needle in every arm.
When those billboards went up in every city in the United States, the
stakeholders — which are the CDC, the NIH, the FDA, and then Pfizer, Moderna,
Johnson & Johnson outside the United States, and AstraZeneca — they meant
When they say needle in every arm, that's not a joke. It's not a needle in
every arm for whom it's appropriate, or a needle in every arm for medically
indicated. No, it's a needle in every arm of every human being. They mean it,
and I think Americans should be frightened."
A Crime Against Humanity
What we're experiencing is really a crime against humanity, and hopefully the
responsible individuals will ultimately be held accountable and found guilty of
such a charge. As noted by McCullough:
"How could one possibly have a large clinical investigation, ask individuals to
sign consent, and then provide no safety mechanisms, really provide nothing
with respect to safety of individuals? Everything about the vaccine is about
safety. The reports that have accrued are so voluminous that if the
stakeholders wanted to make the case that the vaccines are safe, they should
make it with data.
They don't, they simply say the vaccines are safe. And the medical societies
are just as complicit. If you go to the American Medical Association, the
American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, they say the same thing, "The vaccine is safe." Within those
organizations also, there's a large swathe of individuals who are going to have
to answer [for their actions]."
The Spike Protein Is Not a Cure; It's a Disease Agent
As of June 18, 2021, we have 387,087 adverse event reports filed with the
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), including 6,113 deaths, a large
portion of which occurred within days of injection, and 6,435 life threatening
We also have very good evidence to suggest this is a gross undercount, in part
due to general underreporting, and in part due to VAERS refusing to accept
reports — particularly those involving deaths — and scrubbing reports that have
already been filed. So, these already alarming numbers likely only represent
the tip of the iceberg.
"We have red hot problems, like children and young adults developing
myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. I just saw such a patient yesterday,"
McCullough says. "These are proven cases. This is not make believe. This is for
So, you may ask the question, how in the world could this happen? Well, the
first element of this happening is the vaccines as they exist today, either
messenger RNA, or adenoviral DNA, the mechanism of action is not safe. The
mechanism of action poses a biologic danger.
These vaccines all trick the body into making the spike protein of the virus.
The spike protein itself is pathogenic. It's actually what makes the virus
dangerous. It was the object of gain-of-function research. So, it has a
dangerous mechanism of action. Why? Because the spike protein is produced in an
uncontrolled fashion. It's not like a tetanus shot where there's only a certain
amount of protein that's injected.
This is an uncontrolled quantity of spike protein. Probably each person is
different, so may have [lower] production of it. They have very little symptoms
after the vaccine, they're fine.
Hopefully that's the majority of individuals, but there are unfortunate
individuals that must have massive amount of spike protein, and that spike
protein ravages the body wherever the spike protein is locally made, and we do
know the messenger RNA and the adenoviral DNA gets distributed in all the
So if messenger RNA is up in the brain and we start producing spike protein in
the brain, we cause local brain injury. There are now well-described neurologic
injury cases with the vaccine. Many of them. In the heart, it causes
myocarditis and cardiac injury. In the liver, it causes liver injury, in the
lung, lung injury, in the kidney, kidney injury.
And very importantly, the spike protein damages endothelial cells and causes
blood clotting. So, blood clotting, the dreaded complication of the infection
itself, is now caused by the vaccine. Everything we've found out about the
vaccine since its release has been bad."
What Can We Expect to Happen in the Future?
Beyond the acute injury phase, there's the very real possibility of long term
health hazards. If you make it past the first couple of months without
significant problems, you're still not out of the woods. My main concern is the
possibility of paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE), also known as pathogenic
priming, or antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which essentially results in
a cascade of immunological overreactions that wind up killing you.
[The COVID vaccination campaign] will go down in history as the biggest medical
biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There's nothing
close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this thing
ultimately comes to its finality. ~ Dr. Peter McCullough
The autumn and winter of 2021 will be our first "trial by fire." We'll just
have to wait and see how many fully "vaccinated" people end up succumbing to
the seasonal flu and other infections. That'll give us a benchmark for how
prevalent PIE might be. When asked what he predicts for the future, McCullough
"We're so busy with the acute toxicity to the vaccine. We're just absolutely
overwhelmed, so, it's hard to imagine in three to six months where we will be …
There are hints right now that the messenger RNA doesn't break down in a few
days, that the natural disposal systems that we have for the messenger RNA
doesn't work [for the synthetic mRNA].
Now, we don't know about the adenoviral DNA. I have a more favorable view of
the adenoviral DNA products in the sense that maybe the body … can fight that
off and dispose of it. The Johnson & Johnson, per number of injections, has the
fewest complications. And most Americans think just the opposite because of
that misdirection activity.
I think the vaccine stakeholders intentionally picked on Johnson & Johnson in
order to distract attention away from the terrible safety events we've seen
with Pfizer and Moderna. The vast majority of all the devastation we've seen is
with Pfizer and Moderna …
When you generate a really strong antibody response, it's actually more
pathogenic. The belief is it's more pathogenic than the natural infection,
because we're seeing syndromes in vaccine victims that are way worse than
getting COVID-19 itself. I mean, the syndromes are actually horrendous.
I have seen neurologic blindness, cervical myelitis, cerebellar syndrome. It's
absolutely awful. It's depends where the messenger RNA goes … and everything I
can put together biologically, and what I see clinically, is that vaccines
aren't going to work but for a few months …
After the first shot of mRNA, one is actually more susceptible to COVID-19.
This has been shown time and time again. My first rash of patients with
post-vaccination COVID-19 in my practice was always after the first injection.
The theory here is that the body has been hit with the messenger RNA, the spike
protein is generated, it's damaging some endothelial cells, and there's an
immature library of antibodies that are being formed.
And those antibodies, instead of protecting against the next exposure to
COVID-19, they actually facilitate entry. That's called antibody-dependent
enhancement, and I think there is evidence for that … As for what we can expect
long-term, that's anyone's guess."
Long Term Risks Are Unknown
Before COVID came along, the FDA required vaccine makers to provide 24 months'
worth of data before they'd allow it. This was truncated down to two months for
the COVID shots. So, anyone who says the shots are safe long term is lying
because no such data exists to prove this.
"The consent form says, 'We don't know if this is going to work, we don't know
if it's going to last, and we don't know if it's going to be safe.' They say
that. So, anybody who takes the vaccine is going to have to think about this
and understand that we don't know anything beyond two months.
Given all the short-term risks, if there are any long-term risks, it is
absolutely compounding this unknown. What I know based on the literature right
now is there could be a risk given the narrow spectrum of immunologic coverage
... There could be such a narrow immunity that more virulent strain could
overwhelm it …
The most recent variant is the Delta variant. That's the weakest of all the
variants and the most easily treatable. But if someone, let's say a nefarious
entity created a more virulent virus, it could easily be designed to scoot past
a very narrow immunity that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people,
will be keyed to with narrow immunity."
DNA Changes, Cancer and Chronic Illness Are Possible Effects
McCullough also discusses the risk that these mRNA injections might become
permanently incorporated into your DNA by way of reverse transcriptase.
"There now have been enough studies to suggest there is some reverse
transcription — that in fact the RNA creates DNA and then DNA gets permanently
put into the human genome," he explains.
"We know this from the natural infection. The T-Detect test actually checks the
T-cells when it tracks the DNA. This is a commercial test you can get if you
had COVID-19, and it looks for minor chromosomal re-arrangements that code for
cell surface receptors on T-cells."
The question is, if the synthetic mRNA or adenoviral DNAs in fact create
permanent changes to the genome, what effects will that have? Could it promote
cancer, for example? McCullough cites a recent paper indicating the spike
protein might in fact affect two important cancer suppressor genes.
"This is disturbing because we're using novel genetic material and it's
possible that they're oncogenic. We know some other viruses are oncogenic,
including Epstein-Barr virus. So, when that paper hit, we said, 'Oh no, are we
setting up people for cancer risk of solid organ cancers, like breast cancer,
colon cancer, lung cancer, et cetera.
It is a sick feeling what we've learned there. We do understand now that there
must be cell damage that's occurring with this spike protein inside cells. And
that if it's not turned off, that that spike protein generation could end up
with some type of chronic disease.
There are elements of the spike protein that are similar to prions that occur
in neurologic disease, for instance. There may be intracellular changes as the
body keeps cranking the spike protein which you're not supposed to crank, that
causes other problems in cells …
Future development of heart failure comes to mind, gastrointestinal illnesses,
pulmonary fibrosis, neurodegenerative diseases. We could be on to the start of
a whole new genre of chronic disease in America due to this mass
experimentation of genetic products in the human body."
Impossible for Vaccination Program to Improve Disease Curve
In a sane and rational world not laboring under some hidden agenda to kill off
a portion of the population, these shots would have only been rolled out to the
highest-risk individuals. The rest of the population would have been excluded
from the experiment.
Remember the COVID injection trials conflated absolute and relative risk.
Pfizer claimed its mRNA shot was 95% effective, but that was the relative risk
reduction — the absolute risk reduction was actually less than 1%.6 As noted by
McCullough, healthy adults under 50, teens and children have a less than 1%
chance of hospitalization and death from COVID-19, so they don't have a medical
need for it.
"You can't make less than 1% smaller and have it be clinically meaningful.
That's the reason why the vaccine program will never have an impact on the
epidemiologic curves. Dr. [Ronald] Brown from Canada has done the analysis.
Someone sent me an email the other day [saying], 'Dr. McCullough, don't you
think that the pandemic is being favorably impacted by the vaccination
program?' The answer is no. We look at the clinical trials. There's less than
1% absolute risk reduction. It means that, mathematically, it's impossible for
mass vaccination to have a favorable impact on the population."
COVID Shot May Raise Your Risk of COVID Death
What's worse, McCullough cites data showing that those who have gotten the shot
and end up with COVID-19 anyway have far higher rates of hospitalization and
"The CDC was so overwhelmed [with adverse reports], they gave up. God knows how
many tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans got vaccinated and got COVID-19
anyway. It looks just like regular COVID. In the data they had, it was a 9%
risk of hospitalization and then a 3% risk of death."
What this means is that, by taking the injection, you trade in a 0.26%7 risk of
death, should you contract COVID-19, for a 3% risk of death if you get
infected. If you're younger than 40, you're trading a 0.01%8 risk of death for
a 3% risk.
The Way Forward Demands We Just Say No
If you want to hear more of what McCullough has to say, you can find his
podcast, The McCullough Report, on America Out Loud. Every week, he talks to
medical experts from different countries to get a range of perspectives and
innovative approaches. In closing, he notes:
"My personal view is that I think the vaccine program has been a disaster. We
should have just treated COVID-19 as an illness. We should never have shut down
the schools or anything else. None of this wearing masks. We should have just
treated the acute problem, and we would have gotten ourselves out of the
As for how we move forward, first of all, we need to stop the acute injury, and
that means we need to stop taking these COVID shots. Beyond that, we'll need to
experiment to determine the best ways to block the damage done by the spike
protein, for however long that is produced and stays in circulation.
"If there's any mother who's concerned about their child developing
myocarditis, the way to avoid it is just don't bring your child to a
vaccination center," McCullough says.
"Everyone is just going to have to learn to say no. We cannot be harmed by the
vaccine if we just decline it. And the vaccine is completely elective. The CDC,
the NIH, FDA, they've all said it's elective. You don't have to take it. Those
agencies, by the way, they're not taking it.
So, nobody has to take it. And everyone who is in a school or a university, or
a workplace where they're saying you have to take it, or say you have to take
it for travel, the answer is no you don't. You do not have to take it for
travel. And yes, you can show up to work without the vaccine. And yes, you can
show up to school without the vaccine.
These are forms of intimidation and almost every one of these institutions
actually hasn't written a policy. And if they don't have a policy that's been
vetted with fair exemptions, that's just intimidation. That's like saying you
can't show up to work with a blue tie. If I want to wear a blue tie, I'm going
to show up to work in a blue tie.
I think Americans are going to have to have that type of backbone in order to
break this wave of propaganda, [this] ill intent that's levered on the American
people. I know so many people who are cowering … The fear is extraordinary …
If we had a Data Safety Monitoring Report in place, they would have been having
emergency meetings at the end of January 2021, and said, 'You know what? What
we're seeing is not good.' We can actually calculate what's called the
When we exceed a competence interval for risks above a certain risk limit, we
call it, and that [competence interval was exceeded] on January 22, 2021. Yet
here we are, five months later. This will go down in history as the biggest
medical biological product safety catastrophe in human history, by far. There's
nothing close … You can imagine how many heads are going to roll when this
thing ultimately comes to its finality."
A true lover of wisdom has hands too busy to hold on to anything! He learns by
doing and every pebble in the path becomes her teacher! Oink