You’re at a theme park, about to try a brand new roller coaster. It looks amazing. It’s been talked about in the news for months, and you’ve been so excited about it.
The theme park knows a wheel is broken and there could be potential danger ahead, but they don’t tell you.
They tell you it’s perfectly safe–and that everyone else is going to do it. They tell you LOTS of people have done it before you and they were fine. (They inflate those numbers a bit, but you don’t know it).
You’ve got some friends and family shaking in their boots on the sideline, this coaster looks bigger and different than any they’ve seen before. They’re shouting at you “Don’t do it!”
But, the majority of your friends are with you–try it! You’ll be so glad you did!
The theme park people are telling you it’ll be fine–you’ll thank yourself later for being so brave! People around the world will think you’re amazing! You’ll even get a sticker when you’re done!
One of the guys who built the ride is off to the side screaming loudly “DON’T DO IT!” but the theme park security drags him off. You brush it off, thinking he was just some crazy old man who wasn’t worth listening to.
You see that there’s potential risk–but they’re telling you it’s so safe and wonderful! And it looks SO fun! Besides, how many people really die from roller coasters? (Ignore the covered up, paid-off data from other well known parks, of course–that’s just anecdotal and can’t be proven.).
So you decide to move ahead with it. You’re at the top of the line, ready to get on the ride and put on the seat belt. They hand you a clipboard with a piece of paper that they want you to sign. It says you cannot hold the company responsible if you are hurt on this brand new, fantastic roller coaster. That if you die because of the new technology, your family won’t get a penny from the company. That if you end up with brain injury or heart attack or broken bones, they won’t help you. You’ll be out of work and suffering. The company is free from any liability at all. But hey, the ride is worth it.
But a 99% decrease in comparison to the statistics nationally and locally, we use that as a baseline and show that there is a 99% reduction in death and hospitalization. Um, how much more do you need to understand that early treatment, effective treatment, it’s working. They’re going to push through this vaccine with much less data than I’m presenting to you. And they’re going to say, oh, it’s…none of the objections are going to exist for the vaccine.
None of the objections exists for Remdesvir, for example. The reason why is very simple. Hydroxychloroquine costs 20 cents a pill or whatever and there are 12 companies worldwide that make it en masse. Remdesvir costs $1,000 in administration and one company makes it, obviously Remdesvir must be the best drug. I’m not saying it doesn’t work.
The placebo group is an important part of every medical trial. With a placebo group, or control group, we are able to see if the intervention (in this case, the shot) is safe and effective. If there are more deaths in the group receiving the experiment than in the control group, then we know that the experiment is unsafe and should be halted. Also, if the experiment group has less breakthrough infections and less hospitalizations, then we have data to show that it truly is effective.
Arguably, the control group should be unaware that they are in the control group–and they should remain in the control group through the duration of the trial. If the people who received the placebo are told that they are experiment-free and then rush out to get the experiment, the medical trial is then over. Without a control group, we have no ability to see the pros and cons of the shot and no ability to truly tell the world that they are vetted and safe. Long-term testing plays an important role in our ability to declare a medical intervention “safe and effective.”
In the case of the COVID-19 shots, there has been no such long-term testing, and there is no longer a control group. As soon as the jabs got emergency use approval from the FDA, the manufacturers actively promoted vaccination to the placebo group.
Scientists are Concerned
Dr. Steven Goodman, a clinical trials specialist at Stanford, said:
“We don’t know how long protections lasts,” he says. “We don’t know efficacy against variants — for which we definitely need a good control arm — and we also don’t know if there are any differences in any of these parameters by age or race or infirmity.”
In January 2021, the WHO published this in the New England Journal of Medicine:
Large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 efficacy trials could provide much of the needed information if they have appropriately prolonged follow-up while random assignments are still blinded. Such continuation would yield unbiased evidence on the duration of protection and on longer-term safety, including assessment of any evidence of the vaccine eventually enhancing the risk of severe disease (as was recently detected by continued follow-up of placebo recipients in dengue vaccine studies4). If there are hazards, they need to be identified; conversely, longer follow-up might reassuringly demonstrate continued protection with few or no adverse consequences, reducing vaccine hesitancy.
This opportunity to obtain reliable evidence about longer-term effects would be destroyed by early unblinding and immediate vaccination of participants assigned to placebo. Although each participant has the option to pursue any available intervention, if substantial numbers of participants choose not to do so, continuation of blinded follow-up in a population in which no licensed vaccine is being deployed could yield important and unexpected findings that would be difficult to obtain reliably any other way.
Indeed, “the opportunity to obtain reliable evidence about longer-term effects” has been destroyed because these companies did choose to unblind the placebo participants.
Pfizer
Just three days after receiving Emergency Use Authorization, Pfizer sent a letter to the placebo group, stating:
“Healthcare workers will be the first to receive the vaccine (if placebo group). The vaccine will be offered to all other participants (non-healthcare workers) during Visit 4/Month 6…We hope to vaccinate all healthcare participants Wednesday and Thursday of this week.”
Four days before receiving emergency use authorization, December 14, 2020, Moderna sent this in a follow-up letter:
“If you would like to know whether you have received the mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo, then you will be offered the opportunity to be unblinded…If you find out that you received the placebo, we plan to offer you the opportunity to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine and to continue to be followed in the study. We hope to start offering the vaccine within approximately 1-2 weeks after EUA is granted for mRNA-1273.”
“Once the upcoming protocol amendment is approved, we will be able to unblind all of our research subjects, and we will be offering the investigational vaccine to subjects who were randomly assigned to the placebo group.”
Over a year ago, ICAN submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA on June 17, 2020 requesting that all Phase II and III COVID-19 vaccine trials include a placebo control group, that the placebo should be a saline injection without anything added, and that the placebo control group be at least equivalent in size to the experimental group.
While it’s good that the FDA agreed that there should be a placebo group in the vaccine trials, they did not enforce it.
The worst part is that, despite this open defiance of the FDA’s wishes and what is best to protect the American public and assure the safety and efficacy of the clinical trials, as far as we can tell, the FDA has done nothing to punish the companies for this open rebellion against the FDA’s guidance.
Because of this outright defiance, ICAN has asked that the FDA require at least two years of data from these experiments before giving full approval.
The FDA should, at the least, not reward these companies for defying it by still licensing any of these vaccines based on a mere 6 months’ worth of data. It should demand at least two years’ worth of data, especially because of the lack of placebo groups, before even considering granting licensure.
So we need to rise up. As I said it last time, I’ll say it again in a nonviolent way. Non violent way, but we need to protest. In every single city, state, municipality, any neighborhood. We need to make such noise that the politicians realize that it’s in their best interest to listen to us rather than to the special interests. We need people in the grassroots to organize because it’s in our hands.
Now, the symptoms of coronavirus are the following: high fever, cough, the loss of smell and taste. This is very important. Very few things do this. If someone all of a sudden suddenly loses smell and taste, it’s coronavirus until proven otherwise. You can have diarrhea, you can have muscle aches and difficulty breathing, these are all symptoms of coronavirus. So if someone feels the symptoms, in my opinion, don’t wait until day four or five, go to the doctor day one or two just to be safe.
I know I spoke to a few emergency room doctors. They’re seeing a lot of child abuse, much more than usual. And spousal abuse, much more than usual, unfortunately.
For example, I know someone who’s got a heart attack, uh, when he needed a stent, but he couldn’t get a stent because the capability it was shut down and the local hospitals and so there’s many, many, it’s going to be hard to quantify, but there’s the damage that the shutdown of this country has done is not yet and will not be known for many years.
when 70% of the population, two thirds of the population essentially are immune to any viral infection, then it’s ability to spread through the population, um, is severely inhibited.
So there may be pockets of infection here and there, but it’s not gonna spread into a pandemic like we’ve see here.
I contracted COVID myself, my wife and I did in October. She had it easier than I did. I’m 58 but I have some medical problems, and it went into my lungs so I developed the pulmonary part of COVID. And I felt the anxiety of having trouble breathing. And I just can’t imagine being a senior citizen with heart and lung disease and having it. It must be incredibly anxiety-provoking. And during my recovery, I made a series of videos of what I did. Now, fortunately, of course, I’m a doctor. I got myself into a research protocol, and I took the drugs in sequence, and I did all the right things. But one of my recovery videos I did exactly that. What you just described. I laid out the various drugs, the pulse oximeter, how to check blood pressure, the drugs, and I actually even had the packages of the medications. And I wore a tie, and it was a respectful, decent video. I was amazed that YouTube struck that video down within two days, and said that it violates the terms of the community. My very first YouTube video was just the release of my scientific findings, “The American Journal of Medicine”. It was just four slides from the paper, was struck down.
From a peer-reviewed paper.
From a peer-reviewed paper.
They’re probably one of the three most prestigious journals in the country, and you got purged off of YouTube for-
Right. So, Dr. Kory has also been scrubbed, and then Dr. Lowry in the UK has been scrubbed. We’re not the only ones. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Any word on early treatment, any word at all, there are powerful forces out there that can seek out our findings and our message and scrub them from ever getting to patients in need. What’s going on is extraordinary right now. And I think a lot of investigation will be done. Investigative historians are going to look at this very carefully. How can this be? If I did a video on how to treat a heart attack, that wouldn’t have been scrubbed. I have 600 papers in the peer-reviewed literature. 600, one of the most published people in the world. Why is it one paper on COVID and trying to disseminate its findings are absolutely scrubbed? Why is there such a massive resistance to getting these principles disseminated? That is the trillion-dollar question on the table. It’s cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives worldwide. And I think people need to understand and get to the bottom of what’s going on.
I was invited to give Medicine Grand Rounds, which is common as an endowed lecturer, at a prestigious East Coast university, and which I’ve done my entire career for 30 years. And I gave my topic. I said, “The pathophysiologic basis and rationale for the early ambulatory treatment of COVID-19.” My sponsor said, “Oh, that’s interesting. That’s going to really get people’s attention.” I said, “Yeah, that’s what I want to talk about.” He said, “Fine.” He submitted it. It was gone through the process. I submitted all my forms for continuing medical education, my questions, my rationale, conflicts of interest of which I have none. I did everything by the book. The night before I’m going to deliver this lecture by Webex I get a panic call. It says, “Dr. McCullough, we can’t have you give this lecture tomorrow.” I said, “Why? This is scientific discourse, it’s what we do.” He said, “Our infectious disease doctors went to the Chairman of Medicine and said, ‘We can’t let Dr. McCullough give that lecture. And if he did, we would wanna prepare a rebuttal to everything he said.’” I have never witnessed this in my life. I have given thousands of medical lectures. I’ve lectured at the New York Academy of Sciences. I’ve presented before the FDA and the Congressional Oversight Panel, the Senate. I’ve lectured across the world. I’ve never had a doctor groupthink formulate an idea that there must be a rebuttal. We never do this at Medical Grand Rounds. We never do this.
I’m going to make you a bet that virtually all of those infectious disease academics who killed your speech are, if you look at their COIs on their publications, it will show grants from NIAID that they’re on Tony Fauci’s payroll.
I, you know, I learned about Russia and Russian communism and all the propaganda and Nazi Germany and their propaganda machine. I didn’t realize to what degree we live in a a matrix of mind control. For example, if you Google my name on, if you Google my name, the first thing will come up is this doctor is under investigation for this. This doctor is doing this, this doctor is being criticized. It’s custom. The algorithms in Google are designed specifically that anything that’s positive, or good regarding COVID19 is sent to malware. And anything that is derogatory, to first of all to the studies, whatever negative studies that there are or negative information, goes to the top of the Google search engine. Same thing on YouTube. YouTube is taking down all my videos, not only mine, anyone who’s, who’s talking about this, Oh wait, isn’t YouTube owned by Google?
So there is a propaganda machine going on here of such corruption, such a coverup that has resulted in the mass murder of so many Americans.
