#98 Dr. Peter McCullough

0 (0s): There's no such thing as information or misinformation. There's no such thing as science or anti-science. Those are weaponized terms. Anybody who uses the term anti-vaxxer or anti-science or misinformation, those should be cues that that person or that agency is using propaganda. They're actually trying to weaponize terms to create injury in, in, in attempt to disparage another individual and attempt to actually gain some type of superiority of one over the other. 2 (40s): Hello everybody. You are listening to Chatting with Candace. I'm your host, Candice Horbacz. Before we head into this episode, if you could hit like and subscribe, that would help a ton. If you wanna watch the video, this is where it gets tricky. There's going to be a very condensed version on my YouTube channel. The full uncensored version is going to be on my Rumble account. Candice Horbacz. I can't post it. And you'll see why. There's just no way I can put this on YouTube. It will get me into a lot of trouble. So if you wanna watch it, please head over to Rumble. Dr. Peter McCullough is a renowned internalist, a cardiologist. He is one of the most published men in medicine in the United States. 2 (1m 22s): His credentials go a mile long. He is more than qualified to have this conversation, but for some reason, a lot of people don't want him having it. I was super nervous to have this, this talk and to have him on as a guest, not because I don't believe that he's a vital voice. I really do believe that. I think that you constantly have to be testing theories and have healthy skepticism and medical autonomy is so important. Medical freedom is so important, and I really champion anyone that is perpetuating that Narrative. So please listen to this with an open mind. If you know anyone that would like this conversation, please share it with them. And without further ado, please help me welcome Dr. 2 (2m 4s): Peter McCullough. Dr. Peter McCullough. Thank you so, so very much for joining the show today. I am very excited for this. 0 (2m 13s): I'm so excited to be here. Thank you. 2 (2m 16s): So I guess we have to start at the beginning. So before you became one of the most controversial men in medicine, what were you doing? I 0 (2m 26s): Wasn't controversial, you know, maybe I was, I'm a cardiologist and an internist, and I was leading the world in research demonstrating that the heart and kidneys were two organ systems that were constantly communicating with one another, both in health and disease. And so I'm credited with what's called the cardiorenal hypothesis, this whole cardiorenal medicine that drugs can actually improve both heart and kidney function, that the two organ systems are in a sense, paired. And, you know, that's what I was doing academically. I worked as a teaching doctor, internal medicine and cardiology. I had additional certifications over time in echocardiography, clinical ology, forensic medicine. 0 (3m 12s): And I was always very broad based in my approach. And I was well positioned to study covid when it came in. 'cause I'd already treat, I treat common infectious diseases. And, and obviously covid or sars cov to two certainly was common. And it has lots of cardiovascular and kidney reification. So I was ready to rock and roll when the pandemic started. 2 (3m 33s): So when you decided to make the very bold decision to go on Joe Rogan and have a conversation that I'm sure a lot of people told you not to have, what was your motivating factor for, for putting yourself in harm's way or right in like the, the in front of the firing squad, so to speak? Joe 0 (3m 51s): Rogan's a great guy, but I have to tell you, he was really late to the party. Remember, in 2020, I was one of the first people in the United States to have an investigation of a new drug application and a grant to, to treat c Ovid 19. I already published the very first treatment study of how to treat c Ovid 19 at home to reduce hospitalization and death. I'd already authored the first home treatment guide published by the Association of American Physician Surgeons in October of 2020. I testified in the Senate and probably the most recognized Senate hearings of 2020 on early treatment as lead witness November 19th, 2020. And then Joe Rogan is over a year late, a year and a half late. 0 (4m 34s): And he reached out to me in November of 2021. And I said, where have you been? And you know, I was busy. He goes, want me to, you know, he wanted me to come down to Austin. Finally, we negotiated. I came on a show, but by that time there was so much data. I told Joe and the Spotify producers, I said, I'm coming down with my laptop and we're just gonna go over the data. Everything I'm gonna say is gonna be data driven on the slides. And I tell you, Rogan's jaw dropped. 'cause now he realized how late he was to the party and how overwhelming it was that there was intentional suppression of treatment. And we have dangerous vaccines that are being pushed by the governments across the world. 0 (5m 16s): And we finished. He looked like he was, he looked shellshocked when we were done. 2 (5m 21s): I mean, that was a heavy episode. And I think probably one of the main reasons that he was maybe late to the conversation, like a lot of people is there was, there wasn't access to anything. Right? People like yourself were getting censored and shut down. You were kind of being written off as not like you individually, but like anyone that was outspoken against this collective Narrative is just a quack. It's the easiest way to like try to take any credentials away, any authority or I don't know, like all of your credibility essentially. So it would be like, how can I attack his character and his cred credentials? 0 (5m 55s): Well, you know, I disagree with that a a little, little bit. Okay. It's not like, it's not like people didn't know. I mean, you know, when when there's a home treatment guide, millions of people are getting treatment for Covid and there's US Senate hearings, you know, that break all records, it immediately gets censored off YouTube. But, but as soon as something gets censored, it, it becomes incredibly amplified. And then I go on Tucker Carlson and Tucker Carlson goes absolutely nuts. And, and you know, it goes on a two year tear about what in the world's going on with the vaccines. You know, Rogan was late, you know, more than six months late after Tucker Carlson. So it's like, you know, what do you mean you actually have to be either not paying attention to big things going on, or you have to be scared. 0 (6m 42s): And that would be, if I went back on Rogan right now, I I would ask that question. What, what was it? Were you completely in the dark or were you scared? Neither one is good because, you know, he's a great podcaster, a great guy. I like him. But the bottom line is podcasters ought to be aware of big things going on. Yeah, I'd said I set all records on Rogan's show. I beat Elon Musk. No one's ever come close afterwards. I, I mean, wow. He should know, obviously the Spotify producers threatened his contract. Prince Harry got involved. Neil Young, president Biden, Jen Psaki. I messaged Jen Psaki in the White House. I said, listen, if, if there's a problem, I'll, I will come to the White House. 0 (7m 23s): I'll go over all the studies on the vaccine injury syndromes and deaths. You know, it is gonna probably take a full day at that time. There's about 200 on heart damage. Oh no, Dr. McCulloughThe, no, there's no, no problem with that. They went after Rogan because they, they changed the Narrative and said he was a racist. So I think everybody's waking up. The people who get credit are the people who woke up really early and they stayed on it all the way. Now some people, as you know, Tucker Carlson was reasonably early. He was about a year late in terms of the big developments, but is reasonably early enough. And in the end, Foxx just tuned him out. 0 (8m 3s): His whole career was online. Anybody who's really prominent and gets an understanding of what's going on, if they have not received professional reprisal, they haven't been influential enough. Mm, 2 (8m 17s): No, that's a really great point. And when I was trying to look up a lot of your work and specifically interviews, I can't find anything. Like I, your Senate hearing does come up. I saw that one and then there was like, maybe two, but I see a lot of audio versions. But anything that's video based, it's really hard. And I was, obviously, I was using Google, so that's probably one of the main factors as well. But it was really tricky to find it. And I find it troubling as to you have, like you said, a very data-driven conversation over what's happening with these vaccines. And then you go to present it to government officials and they're like, we don't wanna see the data. It seems that there is more of a collective coordinated conversation happening around a lot of subjects. 2 (9m 2s): So that would be like gender, race, the science covid, the pandemic policies, or like lockdowns. So where do you think this coordination is happening? Like who does it benefit? Is it a coincidence or do you think that there is some kind of coordination happening? 0 (9m 18s): You know, what you should do as just a little exercise is go in a Google search and search your own name. See how many hits come up. If you, if you type in a Google search of my name, there's 15 million results, 15 million. So people say, I can't find you. It's like, what? 15 million results. You know, I have my own show, americat Loud Talk Radio McCullough report that's in its third year running every week at 2:00 PM Saturday and Sunday Americat loud talk radio. I've got the top medical sub stack called Courageous Discourse that's subscribed to all over the world. I've got the number one doctor Twitter account of doctors who treat patients in the whole world at p under McCullough MD dot com. 0 (10m 4s): So it's interesting when people say, I can't find you, you know, they've got a full rumble channel that's got, you know, it's got libraries and libraries of of videos. That's 2 (10m 14s): Funny. Rumbles not even on the first page when I, I looked you up, but when I do look you up, a lot of the controversy will come up. Or like people's, again, like people trying to say a bad take on X, Y, Z and then in YouTube doesn't. But the, it's the same company, right? Like Google and YouTube are partners. So it's 0 (10m 30s): Interesting to have 15 million results, but nothing comes up. I mean, I think that that's the thing to look at is type in anybody else and see what comes up. So you could type in another name and maybe you'd get a hundred thousand results or 10,000 results and then something. So the point is, is I'm very, very prominent, but they're running algorithms, so you can't get to me. Wow. So you see there's 15 minute, 15 million results, but I can't get to him. Yeah, that's your sign that censorship is going on. And so here's some common defamatory comments. So for instance, my Wikipedia page, like yours, you can't control it. 0 (11m 12s): You can't edit your own Wikipedia page. People edit it for you, and they write defamatory comments and I'm locked outta my Wikipedia page, so I can't control it. So one of the defamatory comments that come up is anti-vaxxer. And you know, I can tell you I reviewed my own vaccine history. I pulled it out, everything, my mom kept the records in this body that you're looking at. I'm 60 years old, I've taken 69 shots, 69 shots. By definition, I can't be an anti-vaxxer. Come on. I mean, people are calling me anti-vaxxer people who took less shots. I mean, this is ridiculous. 0 (11m 51s): 69 shots, 40 of them have been flu shots every year. 'cause I'm on staff at a hospital. So no, I'm, I'm vaccine risk aware. I'm aware of the risks like everybody should be, but no, I'm not an anti-vaxxer. So you, so we quickly can dispose of these ridiculous things. Another thing that's comes up at Wikipedia is that I was pushing hydroxychloroquine that I was pushing, I wasn't pushing anything. I mean, I have no vested interest in any of these drugs. I, you know, I came up with a protocol and the protocol says you can choose what you wanna use in different categories. It could be hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin, or initially Sapi vir, or now it could be Pax Vid or Mira Vir. 0 (12m 36s): And there's, there's choices. So that's not pushing anything. And another thing that comes up is I'm pushing conspiracy theories now. I've published a book, a nonfiction book, courage to Face C Ovid 19. And in that we do lay out a biopharmaceutical complex, a a working syndicate that has formed worldwide, no one's disputed that. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's simply a description of what's going on. 2 (13m 5s): Well, both of those things are just a really easy way to dismiss you, right? And it's to put that label of anti-vaxxer on or conspiracy theorist on, and then that's supposed to automatically discredit you and have people hopefully tune out so that they can just tune into the accepted Narrative around whatever the subject might be. 0 (13m 22s): Well, I tell you, it's not working, is it? I'm on your show. I've, you know, set all the records on Joe Rogan. I've been a frequent contributor on Foxx News and Newsmax, real America's voice. I've been on a B, C, got the top doctor Twitter account, top medical podcast. It's certainly not working. So if this idea, wow, we're gonna do this. So no, every, you know, we'll, everyone's gonna tune out, Dr. McCullough, it's really bombing out. They should use better techniques. 2 (13m 48s): Do you feel like the Narrative is shifting at all around all of those subjects and, and, and there's more honesty and like scientific rigor happening and people are open to seeing the data? Or do you think that there are a lot of people still digging their heels and when it comes to the Narrative that they had at the beginning of the pandemic? 0 (14m 3s): Well, tide's definitely shifting. I've had a big part in that. You know, I'm the most, one of the most published people in Covid 19. So if you go to National Library of Medicine, you type in my name in Covid, you know, it lights up like a scoreboard again, easy to find, can't be suppressed. And so the data are coming out. So more and more people are contacting me every day greatly concerned they've taken these shots, they've made a giant mistake realizing that they're not safe. They clearly don't work. People, everyone took the shots, got covid anyway. I mean, some of these things are so obvious that of course they're gonna come out. The difficulty is, is that agencies and health systems, sports, media, religious organizations, they actually took money. 0 (14m 47s): They took money from the Biden administration, HHS, it was called the Covid Community Core $13 billion. And those organizations that took money, they feel obligated to push the vaccines. You know, there's still some colleges about a hundred colleges that are pushing vaccines. 2 (15m 4s): No, I didn't. And 0 (15m 6s): Yeah, a lot of 'em are just pushing 'em on the students, but not the faculty. So the poor students who are kind of stuck, they're trying to finish their degrees, they're stuck taking the risk of these vaccines. Nobody wants them, but the faculty get to skate out of this risk. So the students pick up the risk of heart damage, blood clots, death. And there have been college students that have died due to the vaccine. I mean, this is awful, just because they took money from HHS and the Biden administration. 2 (15m 33s): So what do you, what do you do when you're in that situation where you don't have medical freedom and you were, I guess, put in a position where you either have to get this, this shot or you lose your job or you get kicked outta university. Like is there any course of any course that someone can take to, to rectify the situation, especially if they have a side effect? 0 (15m 53s): Yeah. Recently happened with Jamie Foxx, right? So I know Jamie wanted to meet me, take pictures in 2021. We talked about this. So Jamie knew the risks. and what Hollywood reporter AJ Benzo said is that, you know, he was told he had to take a shot to film a movie. Jamie could have turned down the movie, 2 (16m 12s): Right? Yeah. 0 (16m 14s): And so what's alleged is that he took a shot and now he's had a devastating stroke. He, he recently emerged and he looked terrible. And, and recently Tucker Carlson interviewed Ice Cube. 2 (16m 25s): I saw that. It was amazing. 0 (16m 27s): And Ice Cube said, no, it's not worth it. Ice Cube says, I turned down $10 million. I wasn't gonna take the shot. So this boils down to a personal decision. You know, there, there's a hundred schools mandating the vaccine. That means there's 5,000 not mandating the vaccine. Do you, do you take the risk of dying with the vaccine or do you transfer to, to save your life? Do you get a better job somewhere else, or do you risk it with the vaccine? I mean there's, is there really any job that's worth a devastating stroke or any movie that's worth a dev de devastating stroke? I mean, look at Justin Bieber. He developed Ramsey Hunt syndrome. His face is paralyzed. 0 (17m 7s): He's got the same syndrome that Nancy Feinstein has. They probably both took the vaccines and, you know, he hasn't been able to sing for two seasons or dance. 2 (17m 16s): Is that permanent? Is that worth it? 0 (17m 18s): Well, you know, in prior to Covid when it occurred, naturally it was, it could be resolved with steroids and some other drugs. But his is not going away. Wow. And you know, and you have to ask him, you know, was it worth it? Was it really worth it to do that? You know, he was, he was, you know, they were forcing people to take the vaccine to go to his concerts and things like this. I mean, look at DeMar Hamlin almost certainly takes the vaccine. He has a cardiac arrest. The bills were forcing people to take the vaccine to go into the stadium. You know, was it worth it? Was it really worth it? Nick Ku, he plays on U S C last year. He has a cardiac arrest now he's got a a a defibrillator in. And his teammate this year, Bronny James has a near miss cardiac arrest. 0 (18m 1s): Yeah. Is it really worth it to, to go through what these people are going through? 2 (18m 6s): Do we, so do we know how long it could possibly take to potentially have a side effect? Like when do you know that you're in the clear or do we not know? Because they're so new and they haven't been studied as long and rigorous as previous vaccinations. 0 (18m 20s): The companies never researched how the vaccines would get out of the body. That was a huge mistake. They should have figured that out. Hmm. Now we learned that the messenger, r n a looks like it's long lasting. It may be permanent. There was a huge mistake to ever inject somebody with something that the body doesn't, doesn't metabolize and, and clear. Now we learned that the spike protein produced from the vaccine stays in the body for sure months, if not several years. So this is terrible. A paper recently by Lee and colleagues, 75,000 people who took two shots in 2021 and 1.5 million people who took no shots. 0 (19m 0s): The people who took the shots had micro blood clots circulating through the retinal arteries and retinal veins two years later. 2 (19m 8s): Wow. 0 (19m 9s): I mean, this is really disturbing. So no, people never should have taken these shots without knowing where does it go in the body? How long does it last? How does the body get rid of it? 2 (19m 19s): Whoa. Yeah. That's pretty scary. There's this idea of Conscious medical consent, right? So the way that it's been described to me is that you get, you lay out the benefits, you lay out the side effects, and then you lay out alternatives. And then that is kind of a, a holistic, complete version of Conscious consent to any medication, any procedure, et cetera. And when I heard that definition, I kind, I was like really taken aback because I don't know any medication or shot that I've ever been provided any of those except for the benefits. Like I've only been given the benefits with anything. And I was pregnant during C O V I D and my experience was really, really like just disparaging. 2 (20m 2s): I would go in and so I have Graves' disease. So I was going to two doctors. I had to go to a high risk doctor, and then my regular ob and I literally had this woman, she telehealth den from Charleston, South Carolina. And because they weren't do, like, I could go in to see the nurses and get the ultrasound, but the doctor, they were too valuable. They couldn't come in and risk getting sick. So she telehealth and, and my husband was with me. I had just gotten covid. I was like three months pregnant, not Vaccinated. And they see that on your chart. So they kind of like, like they put their idea of who you are and your politics into that decision, right? So they treat you very different if they see that you're unvaccinated, especially if you're pregnant. And she sat there and looked me in the eye and told me I was probably going to have a still birth because I decided not to be Vaccinated. 2 (20m 50s): And I was like, I think that this is entirely inappropriate. There's no science that's backing that, what you just told me. If you know anything about like the immune system or like positive health outcomes, the stress of the mother is a huge factor. And now you're just stressing me out for no reason. And you're letting your politics get in the way of you treating me as a patient. So my husband called the owner of the facility, he's like, she's never to see my wife again. We need a different doctor. We're going somewhere else. And they, they apologized on her behalf, but like that wasn't a unique experience doctor, after doctor, I had to stand up for myself and say, I'm making my own medical decision. I've made it and if you bring it up again, I'm firing you as a physician. 2 (21m 34s): And it was always this like headbutt, every time I went in for a checkup and they would just try and try and try and like you, I would go in presenting data, I would have my notes and I would be looking at Israel and I would, they're like, well, why do you, why are you looking at Israel? I was like, well, they're three months ahead of us and they're on the same vaccination protocol, like the same schedule. So we can see what's happening there. And like just totally data-driven arguments. And they're like, well I don't know about any of that, but you need to take it. And I'm like, well how is this Conscious consent? Like, I don't feel like I even have a choice. And if I wasn't so disagreeable and if I didn't have like that kind of temperament, it would've been really easy to make a decision I didn't want for me or my baby. 0 (22m 11s): It's true. Well, you, you know, we, we learned that the acog, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology took massive numbers of dollars from the Biden administration and HHS to push vaccines on pregnant women, even with no studies suggesting that they were safe. Just a few months earlier, the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen strictly excluded pregnant women from ever getting a shot in the randomized trials. So a few months later, they can't possibly know if it's safe. Again, they're genetic pregnancy's a natural state. Every pregnant mother should have had your reaction to think, wait a minute, this isn't right. 0 (22m 51s): These are brand new genetic shots. We don't know where they go. We don't know how they're gonna affect the baby. And they, they cause production of the spike protein, which is lethal. That's what's killing people with covid. Now we're gonna have a, a pregnant woman circulate the lethal protein to the baby. I, I mean, women should have thought through this. I I was appalled in the first week of the vaccine program when I think it was about 3000 pregnant women took the shots. Wow. They, they were the very first ones. and what woman would do that? That was before there were any mandates. That was before there was anything. They, they lined up at vaccine centers and did this voluntarily. I was astounded that women didn't respect the natural, beautiful part of pregnancy. 0 (23m 37s): This is what we've learned in a paper by Thorpe and colleagues. Oh my lord, it's a disaster to take the shot before pregnancy or during pregnancy. They found in that paper, I'm the senior author, A multi-fold, increased risk of miscarriages. Remember a stillbirth is beyond 20 weeks, by the way, stillbirths, maternal hemorrhage, bad fetal outcomes, oligo hydros, small intra uterine growth, retardation, small babies, and then fetal hemorrhage once there's birth. A paper by Hannah and colleagues in JAMA show that breastfeeding women actually have the genetic material flowing in, in women's breast milk to the baby. 0 (24m 19s): And the baby's taking this in. This is the worst now that they in a paper by Hoyer in the National Center for Health Statistics in March of 2023. This is terrible. Maternal mortality has skyrocketed since the vaccines skyrocketed highest risk group, African-American women. And you know, who is the, the sad case vignette of this Tori Holt. Tori was a Olympics sprinter won the Olympics in 2016. She was found dead in Atlanta with a baby in the womb at seven months. Oh 2 (24m 58s): My God. 0 (24m 59s): And the US Track and Field Association mandated the vaccines. We know now that, you know, in, in America 75% of women who delivered babies through 2021 either took the shot before the before pregnancy or during pregnancy and with, with no knowledge that, that it was safe to do so pregnant women should learn a lesson about this. Never take something in your body during pregnancy. It's a natural, you know, you shouldn't drink alcohol, shouldn't smoke dope. Do other things. You know, even other vaccines are probably not wise. They advise tetanus, diptheria, inactivated, flu. 0 (25m 42s): I think it's unwise for the following reason. Do you know what a precipitant is for a premature delivery? I do not 2 (25m 50s): Fever. Oh wow. 0 (25m 52s): So you would never wanna take a shot, get a fever, and then suddenly have, have a miscarriage. You would never wanna take that risk. You, you just, you just, it's an unnecessary risk. Influenza easily treatable diptheria of pertussis treated with a Z-Pak. Mm. Covid we've treated covid in pregnant women safely with virus, cidal, nasal sprays and washes. Hydroxychloroquine, perfectly safe in pregnancy. We use it all the time in systemic lupus, ivermectin, perfectly safe monoclonal antibodies were used and found to be safe. Corticosteroids, aspirin, heparins. So we always medically treat even the most high risk patient. 0 (26m 33s): We would never risk a genetic vaccine on a pregnant woman. I I think it's a tragedy any woman ever took them. 2 (26m 39s): Yeah. It's interesting too with, with those other shots, because there are a lot of people coming forward saying like, maybe you shouldn't be doing this while you're pregnant. And even the who I believe now is saying that pregnant women shouldn't get the vaccine. And it's like, where were you three years ago when, you know, you were kind of demanding this out of the pregnant patients. And it's interesting because I often wonder like why do people do the things that they do? Like what is their motivating factor? What's there's something pulling a certain string to make them make a, a certain suggestion or decision? So for example, when I was going in and they, they chalked me up to an anti-vaxxer as well because I said no to the covid shot. And then he's like, well I wanna give you a T dap because you haven't had it since your first child. 2 (27m 19s): And I was like, well my first child's two and a half right now. Doesn't the Tdap last about 10 years? So why would I need to do it again? And he looked at me and he's like, well I mean, well you just typically have it before each pregnancy. I was like, but it's still in my body. Why would I do like it's still active in my body for like another seven years? Why would I do that? And he looked at me. 'cause he is so used to people just like not knowing anything. And thankfully like I'm just a researcher so I just look up everything. I love reading. I have an incredible pediatrician that was like, you don't need to do any of this. And he is like the first doctor I've ever had in my life that presents me with options. 0 (27m 54s): Well Candace, let me ask you, are you an anti-vaxxer? 2 (27m 57s): No, I have everything else. You know what I mean? I've got a have you, 0 (28m 1s): Have you pounded up the number of shots you've taken in your life? 2 (28m 4s): No, but I should ask my mom. And I've had the flu vaccine a couple times in my adult life. I've had the Tdap shot and I had, which one is it? The M M R. So I, after my delivery of my first son, they were like, you don't have the antibodies for this. We need to give you this shot. And I was like, okay, that's fine. And this is pre covid, this is like 2019. And I was like, sure, that's fine. It's no big deal. They gave, gave it to me. I end up getting a fever like violently sick for a week. I got covered in red dots that wouldn't go away. And they're like, whoa, you're allergic to this. And then I didn't even end up getting the quote benefit of the antibodies and then they suggested it again. 0 (28m 43s): No, you actually may have gotten measles to tell you the truth. Oh god, yeah. Those red dots. So, so you're not an anti-vaxxer. I bet if you counted up, you've taken more shots than me because you're younger and younger people actually end up taking more shots. So none of us are anti-vaxxers. Now you're vaccine risk aware. Let's talk about tetanus. So there is a, a threat of maternal tetanus in kind of messy childbirth that occurs in third world countries. It's possible, but not in modern day obstetrics where we have, you know, standard labor and delivery techniques. There are cases of infantile tetanus in the United States. 0 (29m 25s): Let me give you another one. They were probably approached you to vaccinate your baby with hepatitis B vaccine. and what we know there is the only babies that need a vaccine are those of of IV drug abusing mothers or mother with active hepatitis B to prevent vertical transmission. Every normal child born to a normal parent like you does not need the hepatitis B shot. Now later on, if they turn out to be a doctor or a nurse going healthcare, they should get a hepatitis B shot. So you can see how going natural makes a lot more sense. Do you know the next thing coming up for babies is The. FDA A is approved monoclonal antibodies against respiratory syncytial virus to be given on the day of birth to every baby born during RSV season. 0 (30m 15s): And I can tell you monoclonal antibodies are a big depot injection in a little baby's arm that is gonna be so painful and so awful for the babies to take. I'm advising mothers to go natural, don't have your babies take any shot on the first day of life and then consider each vaccine on a risk stratified basis. This is very important. Instead of just taking everything, including a lot of things that aren't needed, do it risk stratified. So let's take a normal baby. A normal baby with current water supply, current good hygiene. We don't have risks for diptheria, tetanus, or pertussis. 0 (30m 56s): We don't have any risks there. We really don't have any risk for polio since that was a water supply problem. We don't have any risks of measles, mumps or rubella unless it's a girl before she enters her childbearing years. Rubella is probably compelling. So right there, that big chunk of the childhood schedule could easily be deferred. Now additionally, the adult pneumococcus and the adult influenza vaccines have been asserted in the childhood schedule. The kids definitely don't need those. They don't need respiratory syncytial virus or rotavirus vaccines. 0 (31m 37s): 'cause those are very easy illnesses to treat if the kids get 'em. Anyway. So we're pretty much down to, I think rubella should be thought about as the girls approach childbearing little boys don't get significant rubella, so they don't need that. That's German measles. And, and, and then there has to be some discussion about H P V or human papillomavirus vaccine as they approach reproductive years. But the H P V vaccine covers very few of the strains. There's dozens and dozens of strains of of H P V and all the vaccines we talked about. They've all failed in studies. So if you look at all of them, another ones is homophily, influenza B, that's another one you could, you could basically forego. 0 (32m 22s): There's a recent paper, oh this is on my sub Peter McCullough MD dot com. I just cite the papers. There was a, the C d C had a, a network of centers that was tracking hemophilus influenza B of the 4,400 cases only 77 were serotype B, which is what the vaccine covers. And even then, three quarters of 'em were fully Vaccinated. Same thing with measles, mumps pertussis. When there's outbreaks at least half or more are fully Vaccinated. So the vaccines really don't work anyway. You know, the flu vaccine, that's the worst one. A paper by Chen and colleagues last year for 2021, published in 2022, you know, it had zero effectiveness, zero statistical incident. 0 (33m 8s): Same thing with the adult pneumococcal vaccine, zero protection against hospitalization, death with pneumonia. Wow. So these vaccines are just, now, most of 'em, most of us don't have problems. But if there is a side effect, then you say, well why did I do this? There was no benefit. Anyway, the, these are kind of legacy problems. I mean, we never see diptheria and pertussis. You know why? 'cause it's treated with a Z-pak with tetanus, you know, we clean out wounds. Well, so we use antibiotics for deep tissue wounds. Influenza, we can use Tamiflu or the other drugs. I, I mean, everything's treatable. So we don't have a compelling case. 0 (33m 48s): So, so in a normal child, I, I think there probably should be some discussion about rubella and H P V. And then if someone goes into healthcare hepatitis B, that's it. Now let, let's change this scenario. Let's say your child has cystic fibrosis, a common pulmonary disease. Now any one of the illnesses that I mentioned in a patient with CF could be fatal, could be fatal. So different story, maybe a child with cystic fibrosis. The risk is high enough where we ought to more broadly vaccinate. Same thing with a child with a congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Some forms of congenital adult lung or a harder lung disease. 0 (34m 31s): So I think each child is different. Do you see what I mean? So it is this idea of let's just blanket each child right now with the covid shots, each child is over 108 shots by age 18. 2 (34m 45s): Whoa. And that's significantly higher than other parts of the world. Correct? Like Europe and like Switzerland, specifically Denmark. That area, 0 (34m 54s): You know, it's variable out today on my CK is an analysis by Miller and colleagues, which is really disturbing. It shows the countries that give the most vaccines in the neonatal period and before age one, they have the highest child mortality at age one in five years. First authors Miller and colleagues. Th this is a terrible sign. This is an absolute terrible sign. Now conversely papers by, by Miller, by Thomas, and, and then there's a third author, I'm, I'm failing to pull it in right now, but at least three or four studies now show going natural. 0 (35m 39s): If children who get no vaccines, put it this way, they have the lowest rates of need for temp, ostomy, tubes, allergic, pneumonitis, rhinitis, pH pharyngitis. They have the lowest rates of neuropsychiatric disorders like a, D, d, Asperger's, autism, other behavioral disorders. I mean, going natural in the literature, in, in contemporary medicine right now looks very good. 2 (36m 5s): Wow. Which is not what you hear at all in the mainstream Narrative. So what, let's go back to like the history of when we kind of started making this enforced. And when I say enforced, it means like you, you can't send your kid to a public or private school pretty much in any state if they don't have the full schedule. So what was the dr like how, what made that decision? And then we have all this new information coming out like you just described, where it's we're we, duh, like we're all biodiverse creatures. Like what I need is not necessarily what you need. Also going back to medical autonomy and agency and having the freedom to make your choice. So we made this decision, I guess why, and then why haven't we revised it? 0 (36m 48s): I think a big inflection point was the 1986 vaccine Injury Compensation Act in indemnity legislation. 1986 got pushed through. There were so many deaths with the diptheria pertussis vaccine that it was, I believe Lilly at the time, there's so many deaths. The company said they're gonna not make vaccines anymore 'cause they were getting sued. Mm. And so what happened is the government stepped in and said that the vaccine companies can't be sued. And so as soon as that happened, the vaccines companies, they made more and more vaccines and they used a lot of lobbying efforts to, to ultimately get these on the bills in states to push 'em on children. 0 (37m 34s): So I think it was really driven, the vaccine industry is very powerful. They make a lot of money and as soon as they got immunity from any lawsuits, so, you know, basically no one could be sued. It got forced. Now the states are variable. Some states like Texas have three forms of exemptions, medical, philosophical, and religious. And so you always wanna look at a state, do they have all three? So you could just opt out of it. Some states are really bad, one of 'em is California, where over time they've stripped away all three forms of exemptions. So, so, so that means effectively the children get railroaded into vaccination, otherwise they can't go to school. 0 (38m 20s): And so, you know, a lot of families at that level say, you know what, this doesn't look good. We gotta make a move. We gotta go to a state that has all three. And so, so that way they can make their own choices on this because let's take autism, that's a hot, that's a hot topic. When I was a kid, autism was one in 10,000. Now, today it's one in 36. It's considered the biggest disaster. A a parents, a set of parents could have be have an autistic child. There's a paper by D longing. And as a, as a just a reference point, I believe it was 2010 showing that, that it's, it's the multiplicity of vaccines giving 4, 5, 6, it all at once, that trigger a reactogenic response, afebrile seizure, and then the child is, is left with autism. 0 (39m 10s): That was clearly shown. There's about 200 papers showing that autism is related to the immune system. It's a perturbation of the immune system during development, the major thing that influences the immune system is all the vaccines the kids receive. And so it's probably not any specific vaccine or any specific component of vaccines, although they could be provocateurs like aluminum or mercury. It's just the multiplicity of vaccines. That's what keeps coming up over and over again. And even if one wanted to take the vaccines to spread them out, I think when a child gets, you know, three vaccines in one syringe and another three vaccines and another syringe, and they get 'em all at once, the, the, it's very, very risky. 0 (39m 53s): Now you add in the covid shots as well. Remember if a parent is following the schedule, the baby is getting experimental genetic shots, now they're getting two shots starting at age six months and seven months. And then a few months later they get the next shot on an every six month schedule forever. 2 (40m 10s): And which one is that? Which one is that? 0 (40m 12s): That would be Pfizer and Moderna. Oh 2 (40m 14s): Wow. So do you think that the conversations, R f k is a really good example, right? He's been very outspoken on vaccines and it seems to be taking, that's one of the main talking points for his, I guess his opposition for his candidacy. Do you think that it's just a lot of like funding coming from big pharma that's shutting down these conversations and trying to write him off like an anti-vaxxer as well and just saying there is no link to autism whatsoever. These things are quote, safe and effective. You hear that trust the science, which I would love to get your definition of what is quote the science, because I thought it was a method and it was this deep questioning, right? But it seems like that that definition has also changed as of late. 0 (40m 57s): It's true. Science is a method. You know, our experimentation, our reports generate data and then data, there's always multiple points of view. So there's no such thing as information or misinformation. There's no such thing as science or anti-science. Those are weaponized terms. Anybody who uses the term anti-vaxxer or anti-science or misinformation, those should be cues that that person or that agency is using propaganda. They're actually trying to weaponize terms to create injury in, in an attempt to disparage another individual, an attempt to actually gain some type of superiority of one over the other. 0 (41m 46s): And so this, there are very, very dangerous words. Let's take misinformation. Misinformation came into the English literature on 1500. It was extensively used in Nazi Germany. So, so the Nazis said that they held the information, the people against the Nazis were promoting misinformation. They extensively used it. In 2018, Washington Post had misinformation is word of the year word in partisan politics. That's before Covid. Now it comes into Covid and then suddenly the American College of Physicians, American Medical Association, American Board of Internal Medicine, that they claim that they hold information and if somebody doesn't espouse their views, that they're spreading misinformation. 0 (42m 30s): That's an example of propaganda at the level of medical societies. That's very dangerous. It doesn't exist. There's simply our data. I just quote the data and you and I and everybody else will have two or more points of view. Hmm. No, no two doctors agree on any set of data. 2 (42m 47s): No. Which is why you seek a second opinion or you used to be encouraged to, 0 (42m 51s): Right? That's exactly right. So this is about data and in medicine we use what's called inferential thinking. Inferential thinking means we never really know the truth. We make observations because we're approximating truth. It's very different than deductive thinking. Deductive thinking is like in physics where there's a law and you depend on this mathematical formula and this law to make a plane take off or to make a, you know, to make a, an engine work. So deduction is very different than induction. In medicine we use inductive thinking or what's called inferential thinking. But you know, America and the world has witnessed this that some doctors who are just discussing the data, and I've cited dozens of papers on this interview, any doctor worth their salt can cite the data. 0 (43m 44s): And I can tell you, if you had a doctor on who is promoting the vaccines right now, they wouldn't be citing any data that you, you know, what they would be doing is they would be deferring to the C d C, they would say, well, the C d C recommends this, the FDA recommends this. Remember, these agencies are not, they're not judicial notice and a court of law judicial notice means the sky is blue that it's so apparent it can't be challenged. The sky is blue. The C d C and FDA are not, you know, are not equivalent to judicial notice. In fact, our former director of the C D C Rochelle Lewinsky has come out and said the c d C has made large mistakes. 0 (44m 24s): It needs to be overhauled. So nothing the c d C can be has said, can be taken as absolute truth. 2 (44m 31s): Yeah. And then I guess speaking of which, so you have, I don't wanna butcher his name. You have one of the, I guess, hottest people running for Republican candidate, which is Vivek Ramaswamy. And his big thing that he just posted was that he said he won't wants to quote gut the FDA that it's fundamentally hostile to patients right to try. And that they're really hypocritical in the sense that they'll, they'll fight you tooth and nail to not let you try a lifesaving medicine when you have, you know, when you're on your deathbed because they say it has to have billions of dollars behind it, A decade worth of research. But then when it comes to the experimental vaccine that got rushed through in less than a year, and then everyone quote had to take it. 2 (45m 12s): So he's talking about dismantling that institution. You obviously have R F K, which one of his big platforms is a patient's right to choose and autonomy and freedom. Where do you see politics kind of going around these conversations? Is around healthcare and autonomy going into the election year and what big reform do you wish to see? 0 (45m 33s): All the presidential candidates really need to have their vaccine analysis and talking points down. All of 'em, all of 'em need a lot of help. None of them are doctors, so they don't have the, the art and the, the skill of medicine nor the, nor the education. None of 'em are as educated as a doctor. So they'd be wise to really partner up with top doctors and get advice. They need to be able to say what happened during the vaccine campaign. Call it as it is. They all had to disclose how many shots they took. Now Ramis Swami Timidly came out and said he took two shots, but he regrets it and he hesitated greatly. Brett, Brett Mar was just interviewing DeSantis and he said, did the vaccines work? 0 (46m 16s): And DeSantis hesitated then went on and, and gave a pretty strong answer. They all need to come out, they should partner up with doctors. They shouldn't. I'll give you an example. I think R F K needs to improve. He doesn't need to litigate every little debate question. He should have high powered doctors like me doing that. He needs to focus on foreign policy, domestic policy, the, the economy just, you know, start becoming presidential as opposed to being, you know, a litigator. And all of 'em need to evolve at Tim Scott Pence, Chris Christie, DeSantis, none of them have completely articulated where they would be on the vaccines. 0 (47m 0s): Should the mandates be dropped, should they be pulled off the market. So they all need help. I mean, 25% of Americans didn't take a vaccine. Most of them suffered tremendous professional or personal reprisal. Look what you and your husband faced for not taking the vaccine. Believe me, that 25% of the population, you and me were voters. Yes. Remember only 60% of the population votes. So now you have 25% of that percentage. Now you add on of the people who took the vaccines, according to Zogby in the survey last summer, 15% of people who took the vaccines are sick from the vaccines. 0 (47m 41s): They got medical problems, blood clots, heart damage. So you add 15 to 25, now you've got 40% of the 60% that the vaccine is a big issue. So, you know, no surprise, Trump was in Iowa the first time he, there was an open mic and a woman got a chance to ask a question. What does she ask him about the vaccines? So I gotta tell you, the candidates better start prepping up. I don't, I don't think any of 'em are equipped right now to really navigate very well. They need expert medical advice for sure. 2 (48m 16s): Yeah. And it's really interesting because somehow along the lines it got shifted that the quote anti-vaxxers were all right wing or you know, alt-right, whatever they were labeling it and it's like both parties were pushing for it, right? It, it started under Trump and then it finished under Biden. So it wasn't like red or versus blue. It's just like who is, who is respecting personal choice and freedom and it, everyone's an individual at the end of the day and everyone's taking money. Like if you look at all of the like big pharma and big tobacco, whatever it is, like everyone is giving money to donate to different parties. So not no one is like purely I think, innocent of this. 2 (48m 56s): I just wish there was more transparency around it. Well, 0 (48m 59s): But let me, let's give some credit though, first to former president Trump, Trump. He's been very consistent about this. He said he would never mandate them, 2 (49m 8s): Right? Never. 0 (49m 9s): That's fair. Okay. And I'm nearly certain DeSantis has said that too. the other person in that camp for sure is Robert F. Kennedy. So you have three and, and what would the world look like if there never were any vaccine mandates? If it was completely elective, no pressure. So if there was no pressure coercion or threat or reprisal, and if the vaccines were out there but there were no mandates, would we even be talking today? Do you see what I mean? I think the mandates is what really juiced this up when people started, you know, getting a blood clot or losing their job or heart damage or getting kicked out of the military, or sadly dying of the vaccine versus trying to finish school. 0 (49m 56s): I I I, I mean when those cho that's, I think that's what really charged it up. So to me, the mandates, if you were to start with a, a softer question to all the candidates, say, listen, did you support mandates? And would you ever consider supporting them in the future? They should all come out with a strong no on that one. 2 (50m 15s): I would hope so. I really hope so. I think it's gonna be a wild election year for sure. Like we're absolutely wild. 0 (50m 22s): You know, we're coming to the end of the hour, so we're gonna have to bring this to a close. But, but I wanna thank you so much for having me on the program and I wanna encourage your followers to go to my website, Peter McCullough MD dot com. That'll take you everywhere. Make sure you check out my new foundation, McCullough, f n d, Frank Nancy David McCulloughThe f n d.org, that's 5 0 1 c three fully tax deductible helps support all the efforts I'm doing in my team in terms of scholarship, pro bono representation of people who are vaccine injured, people who have had pandemic injustices, you know, affect their life as well as all my media and, and other interactions. 0 (51m 6s): So I've several more shows today. I've got a live program tonight in Fort Worth and that, that's a typical day for me. So really appreciate so much. Thanks so much for having me on the, on the program. Of 2 (51m 19s): Course. And thank you so much again. Your work is, is vital. It's nothing short of vital. So thank you so much. And you are a shining example of how to be brave and authentic and to, to speak the truth. So yes, thank you so much and I hope that everyone checks out your work and stays in touch with you. Thank you again. 0 (51m 36s): Thank you. 2 (51m 37s): That's it for this week's episode of Chatting with Candace. If you enjoyed the content, please leave a five star review and if you know anyone else that would like this conversation, please share it with them. And with all of that, thank you so much for listening. I hope you enjoyed some or all of the content, you learned something and I will see you next week. Bye everybody.