Everyone meet kevin here in this video. My goal is to provide a summary of the dr peter mccullough interview with a joe rogan, i'm going to provide claims 23 of them, and then i'm going to provide some facts and the goal is for you to make your own conclusion claim number one. One of the claims that peter mccullough makes is that big pharma the government and bill gates colluded in 2017 to create the pandemic and push vaccines for profit purposes. He also stated that the government pharmacy or the pharmaceutical industry did not provide a focus on finding a treatment for covid, rather than just pushing vaccines.

Now to some degree. I agree, i'm highly pissed off that our government did not promote even preventative measures like better masks. Most cloth masks are highly ineffective. This is why people hate masks and masks suck, don't get me wrong, but n95s could have been made with a defense production act and we could have had a government that provided better mass that work for protecting people in both directions.

That are closer to 80 to 95 effective. We didn't get that. We also didn't get a government that focused on hepa filtration in schools or businesses. Instead, we had a government that focused on lockdowns.

I think this was very wrong. We could have focused on these preventative measures, but instead the government and a lot of companies did seem very focused on getting to that vaccine point and even still, today, nearly two years in we're still not properly educating folks on the differences in quality of mass and Hepa filtration, which should be basic points, but our government has failed at doing that and i hate the government for this. However, i will say the pharmaceutical industry did provide treatments early on, remember, remdezavir or other monoclonal antibody cocktails, such as that that donald trump received when he was sick at walter reed. It's worth noting that rem deserve.

According to the new england journal of medicine, showed that out of 562 patients point seven percent who received drum deserve were hospitalized compared to the placebo group, who received uh or where 5.3 percent of individuals uh went to the hospital. Almost six times as many folks were hospitalized compared to those who received from disavow - and this was one of the first treatments that we saw during the pandemic. Now this is interesting. Monoclonal antibodies are expensive.

They cost around three to five thousand dollars now. Some might say that a vaccines are only like 20 and monoclonal antibodies. Those are like three to five thousand dollars, so maybe it would actually make more sense to push treatments over vaccines because they're more expensive, but it's worth noting that probably only somewhere around one in a thousand folks would actually get a treatment that is this expensive compared To potentially everyone who could get a vaccine, the margins on both of these seem to be between 20 and 40 percent uh, so yeah. Of course, there are profitable products uh in uh in a pandemic, and no doubt about that.

So i understand the jade, but when we look at some of the data there were treatments and now we have vaccines and of course, i'm a big fan. I want to say i am vaccinated, but i'm a fan of people having their own choice when it comes to vaccination, but i do think that good, solid research is important to always have in our back pocket now claim number two is that the use of hydroxychlorquin Was uh prevented by the government and the goal for this was to push vaccines instead of hydroxychloroquine, and one of the issues here is the vast amount of different literature that we have on hydroxychloroquine and unfortunately, most of the research that we can find that have has The largest end number or research, with the largest amount of trial participants that are also peer-reviewed and had placebos, do not find that hydroxychloroquine is highly effective. They do not find that now there are unpeer-reviewed studies that do say that hcq is effective, but the peer-reviewed ones find it very difficult to replicate efficacy in hydroxychloroquine. All of my citations by the way will be linked in the description down below.

So you can fact check me as well. In fact, the fda did approve hydroxychloroquine for emergency use, authorization on march 28th, but ended up canceling. That emergency use authorization almost three months later, just just under three months later, potentially because it was seen as an ineffective way at treating covid. It gave some folks a false sense of security and potentially led to irregular heartbeats and uh and other symptoms that that were not ideal.

Uh. Now it's worth noting that the journal of american medical association found that patients who received hydroxychloroquine were not significantly better off than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine. They found that 10.4 of patients administered with hcq died and 10.6 in the placebo group died, and so the difference here was deemed to be marginal, that it was better to promote potentially, more effective treatments like the pfizer or the merc pills that we have now or The vaccines now again, i'm a big fan of choice for the vaccines. I have no benefit by trying to pitch the vaccines, but it makes sense to me that if an individual believes hey, if i get sick, i'll just have hcq and i'll be fine, and there are plenty of anecdotal reports that hcq works.

When we actually look for facts, it's hard to find broad-based, peer-reviewed facts that hcq works or works better than essentially nothing and that's unfortunate. But that is what at least the research turns up now claim number three is that japan and mexico used hydroxychloroquine to control covet and that mexico just used it to flatten their most recent curve. But the problem is, if you research, mexico, using hydroxychloroquine the last article that i could find was from may of 2020 and it talks about how hydroxychloroquine doesn't work when i search japan and hydroxychloroquine. I do find japanese newspapers talking about it, but the only thing they say is the world health organization warns against the use of hydroxychloroquine.

So dr peter mccullough's claim here is a little unfounded, at least with the initial research that we were able to conduct to suggest that japan and mexico are using hcq, and i think it's really important when you have a passionate person saying hey look at japan and Mexico, their cases are going down they're going down because they're using hcq well where's the evidence to back that up. That becomes a little bit problematic, passionate speakers providing evidence without actually providing citations, not ideal, and that's why all my citations will be linked down below claim number four modona concluded with pfizer the wuhan lab and bill gates and others to create the pandemic and vaccine back In 2017 - and he claims it was all planned out by johns hopkins now. The problem here is that we regularly have pandemic scenario training and that coronaviruses are very, very common. It wasn't just the sparse pandemic, which was a hypothetical training scenario, where a novel coronavirus swept the world from 2025 to 2028.

It wasn't the only one. There was also event 201, where, in october of 2019, just two to three months before the first people who got coveted started getting coveted in china event, 201 also talked about a uh, what they called it. The caps virus, which was a novel coronavirus, same thing, so these hypothetical training scenarios are very, very common and they frequently use or reference coronaviruses. Unfortunately, though, this leads to a lot of misinformation that spreads on social media, because people say things like.

Oh, my gosh moderna already had the vaccine before the coven 19 pandemic, yet they failed to make the conclusion that a lot of the vaccines that existed for coronaviruses before covet 19 were for different forms of coronavirus like mers and sars. These are two larger larger coronavirus strains that created outbreaks that already have treatments for like mers, which was found in saudi arabia in 2012, or sars from the outbreak in 2003.. Now remember, coronavirus, very, very common okay claim number five claim. Number five is that dr peter mccullar likens our situation to nazi germany and it claims that we're under a mass formation psychosis.

He says there are four things for this: one: a prolonged period of isolation: lockdowns. There must be a withdrawal from things that we like constant flow of anxiety, like the news cycle of hospitalizations deaths and manipulative information and a single solution offered by an authority, and he says that single solution is is a vaccine. It doesn't matter what you take just take a vaccine. No, i i think this is a little potentially easier to to dispute than just the fact that we're not really under a prolonged period of isolation.

Most of us have quite frankly, gone well back to normal. We do have a constant flow of anxiety-inducing news. There's no doubt about that. Remember if it bleeds.

It leads. That's just the way the news cycle works and there's some degree of withdrawal from things that we like, but i wouldn't say completely. I mean, i think a lot of people are going back out. Traveling restaurants bars uh parties, whatever uh.

There is a single solution offered by authorities, and this i agree with peter mccullough - is maybe not necessarily suspicious the way he puts it or the way he believes. But kind of a frustrating, because i do believe that limiting the spread of covet can be done very well with either for those who want, i don't think it should be mandated, but for those who want better masking, if you don't want to get sick, wear an N95 respirator and properly fit it shave properly, fit it and number two. There should potentially be requirements that if we wanted to limit covet, don't shut businesses down or you know, force things that don't work very well like miss random cloth, masks that don't function well, rather than forcing that how about forcing hepa filtration. So we can actually limit the covet, spread and kill covert germs in the air.

Hepa filtration works very well at this, so i agree that this push for a single solution by our government is very, very frustrating uh. But now do keep in mind, though, that uh pfizer moderna all of these have had good efficacy against the initial forms of covet. But we have seen a substantial decline in the efficacy of these because of omicron, especially with antibodies. Our antibody response, if you have a double double dose of the vaccines, is only expected to be around 23 effective, which is not ideal.

Prior illness, antibodies from prior illness are only expected to be about 18 percent efficacious, which is not ideal, and it really takes getting to a booster to have about a 75 protection against severe illness, but you could still get covet as well. This is actually where i think it's very frustrating, and i agree with dr peter mccullough - that again we shouldn't only be relying on vaccines now, fortunately, knock on wood omicron seems to be a lot more mild. We won't go deep on omicron research in this video because i've done that plenty of times in other videos, and i hope that omicron ushers in the end of the pandemic, but very, very important. To note where there are some differences between claims that dr peter mccullough is making, which are viral and exciting, but potentially a little further down the road and starting to escape reality a little bit uh, there are some places.

I agree with him, though. The sixth claim dr peter mccullough he says or makes, is that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus according to research. This is false. According to the university of chicago medicine, asymptomatic spread makes up about 50 percent of community transmission.

All the citations again link down below claim number seven. Dr peter mccullough says you can only catch covid once joe rogan pushes back here and talks about a friend who had gotten sick twice and research shows that look while natural immunity is good and potentially has a longer lasting t-cell response compared to the vaccines, meaning that Natural immunity could actually be better against preventing a severe disease for a second infection. Ultimately, you can still get coveted twice because right now, natural immunity, as i've already said, is only 18 effective at preventing you from getting sick again, which is unfortunate and that's just because the uh, the spike protein, the head of the spike protein, has mutated. So much that our antibodies just aren't that effective against this new strain.

However, our t cells are very effective at identifying the full spike protein, not just the head. They identify the pain of the entire spike protein and ultimately do provide substantial protection and lasting protection. Again. More lasting protection found in t cell response than antibody stone.

This is also why a lot of mainstream media and and the government are, are suggesting individuals get boosters, which again, i i believe, there's choice here. Uh, i believe in the boosters i recommend uh getting the boosters. I am boosted uh, but i i do believe that uh, the boosters give you a nice boost of antibodies that are more effective than if you got your double dose six months ago and your antibody efficacy has has dropped to 23. That's not ideal! You want to get back to that 75 percent level with the boosters and again choice, i'm not pushing or suggesting that you have to get vaccinated.

Uh claim number. Eight dr peter mccullough claims that if we have used his treatment theories, we would have saved 50 of the lives taken by coven now his proof his citation for this, because this is a bold claim. His citation for this is that he testified under oath and told the senate that 50 of people's lives have been saved and he testified again in 2021 and upped, his thesis to 85 percent of lives could have been saved if people had used his uh his methods. The problem with this is using yourself as a citation is not proper.

Argumentation argumentation should be claimed and then provide actual third party, unbiased research and citations, and we do not have that for this claim. In fact, if we look into dr peter mccullough's fort worth study, which he references, that oh we did a study in fort worth, there's no study there. Instead, what we have are articles talking about how dr peter mccullough's restraining order issued by his prior employer baylor health are asking basically peter mccullough to stop referencing that he used to work for baylor health because they reached a confidential settlement. So really when, if, if you make a claim and you reference a study and then i try to look to study up - and i can't find it a little bit of a problem - a little sus all right then claim number nine.

The doctor says that vaccines did something to reduce hospitalizations early on, but after six months he says the vaccine is statistically insignificant at reducing mortality rates. This is partially true, but not fully true see. We have data that, yes, the vaccine efficacy drops substantially, but kaiser did a study that showed pfizer still had a 47 efficacy after six months, which is kind of on par with a lot of flu shots anyway. This is not statistically ignition insignificant, like he mentions.

It's still actually quite decent, especially when it shows 90 efficacy against hospitalizations, even after six months, again, research and statistics down below uh. It is correct, though, that after six months, the vaccines do become a lot less effective, and this is why boosters are recommended, which i know is very frustrating to many individuals who don't want to live with getting shots for their entire life. And this is where knock on wood omicron takes over, it ends up being mild and we just end up living with a cold, hopefully, hopefully knock on wood now claim number 10. Dr peter mccullough talks about how bangladesh's handling of covin where they had about 300 confirmed pace cases per day ended up handling the pandemic by using a nasal oral hygiene process.

He says that if you disinfect the nose and the mouth with an iodine blast, it knocks down your viral load, particularly the delta variant. Now, when we look at research, we find that most people attribute bangladesh's low case numbers to a complete lack of testing in bangladesh. We test about 1.8 individuals out of 1 000. This is compared to 10x that in the united kingdom or 19.4 individuals per thousand getting tested claim number 11 on nasal sprays, dr mccullough says again.

All you have to do is a little bit of peroxide or iodine use a neti pot to in reduce your infection risk uh. But if you take a look at this, you find that there are quite a few studies and again i'll link these down below around the topic of a providing iodine, nasal sprays and similar. But i couldn't find any peer-reviewed studies supporting the claim that this would actually help in a statistically significant way in preventing infection in one study, 79 patients were treated this way and found that patients would be 19 times less likely to be hospitalized when taking the nasal Spray twice daily, but the study used the cdc statistics as a control comparing 79 patients administered twice daily, with nasal sprays to 1 million 200 or 1 million 22 977 cases reported by the cdc in the same time period. This is a very, very weird way of conducting a study because there was actually no placebo control like if they took these 79 patients and said half are not doing the nasal spray and half are then we actually have a properly controlled study because you're doing the Study yourself and you're using the same measures on both.

But if you're just saying here, 19 people who took the neti pot and uh and look hey. They were a lot less likely to get coveted and you're, comparing it to the rate of other people getting covert. During that same period of time, when, when people who are within the study or potentially behaving in a different way or it's a small subset of the population or people who really want this to work, and so so, potentially they're substantially more careful or whatever this, this Is an improper way to conduct a study despite the fact that it's even in a small sample size and the study was not peer reviewed, so the the evidence that we have here is is weak at best on the neti pot claim number 12 dr peter mccullough Says multiple countries sent him letters telling him not to treat covet patients now what's interesting about. This is there's no way to verify that he has received letters suggesting that he should not treat covet patients? We haven't seen these letters even if we saw the letters it would be very difficult to verify that they are actually real.

So it's it's difficult to research somebody's claims when they use themselves as a citation very frequently, and that does sometimes make this process very frustrating. But it can make somebody feel or seem more credible when they use themselves as a citation like well, i testified under oath. I did this, i did it great, but we we need real research and so far we're we're lacking we're really lacking and we're on claim. 13: okay - let's see if it gets any better uh dr peter mccullough complains that he was not invited to talk at harvard and other top universities.

Okay, but there's also it's just useful to know that speaking at universities is not right. Claim number 14 dr peter mccullough claims that, when he testified to the senate about monoclonal antibodies, suggesting that they're not being used and that they're extremely effective at treating covin, he claims that the government is is under utilizing. These treatment methods - and this is where dr mccullough does have a point - that we should be focused on providing early treatment as much as possible that monoclonal, monoclonal antibodies might be something that would be very useful. The problem is these are very expensive and hard to make and that's not an excuse for not making them but they're in short supply, because they take a long time to make now.

Fortunately, the treatment is free for individuals who do get these monoclonal antibodies. They are lab, made proteins that mimic the system's ability to fight off harmful viruses. They counteract the virus before it can destroy the body's organs they're administered by an ev or an iv. So i'm thinking electric vehicles here, they're administered by an iv and the fda, does say that monoclonal antibodies work.

They make it more difficult for covet to reproduce in the body in the new york times uh. They also mention that there is only uh. Unfortunately, one uh monoclonal antibody cocktail that actually works against omicron, but the problem is it's in such short supply that hospitals are running out of this. So here is actually a point where i agree with dr peter mccullough.

We should be focused on using the defense production act or whatever measures or or opportunities. We have to make sure we have enough capabilities to treat people early to prevent death. So here i i agree like what is our government doing? I completely agree, i think, we're on the same page, so we both dislike how the government is handling things uh. There are some things that i i just can't agree with as much on and again, the goal of this is to provide a brief, concise, summary of a three-hour interview claim number 15..

The doctor claims that once you have coveted you are immune forever. So we've kind of already touched on this. The cdc in october mentioned that uh, natural immunity and vaccine immunity both offer large levels of immunity, but but neither of them are near 100 that was before. Omicron came around now.

We know with omicron you're only 18 protected from natural or with natural immunity, 23 percent protected. If you had a double dose of either 50 or more journal, so you can absolutely get coveted again. You are not immune forever. I this! This is just wrong.

Claim. Number. 16, dr peter mccullough claims that doctors recommending a vaccine is a violation of the nuremberg code, all right well, the conclusion here is is pretty clear that, first of all, i i agree that you shouldn't be mandated to have a vaccine, but beyond that uh you know Recommending the coven-19 vaccine does not violate the nuremberg code because, ultimately, vaccines at this point are not experimental. The vaccines were approved via emergency use, authorization in the united states uh, and once you have something that is deemed non-experimental, you don't violate the nuremberg code.

Now individuals might believe that the vaccines are still experimental, which i don't blame people for believing or thinking that it is important to be skeptical with information and claims that we hear. But i think this is a stretch claim number 17. Dr peter mccullough claims that vaccines have caused 18 000 18 000 deaths to date now for claim number 17 and again citations linked down below. We just have a little bit of a number mismatch here.

Dr peter mccullough claims that vaccines caused 18 000 deaths to date. Reuters fact checked this and found that there have only been 8164 deaths following the vaccines to date. Now this is different. Dr peter mccullough says there have been 18 000 from the vaccine.

Well, we only have 8164 after the vaccine after the vaccine does not necessarily mean that it was from the vaccine and obviously this is something that is hotly debated, but there's definitely a mismatch. Even if we said that every single one of those 8164 deaths were from uh, the vaccine, dr peter mccullough, is still overstating his evidence by about two and a half x overstating evidence loose citations citations to himself not the best form of argumentation. However, they sound very convincing in an interview claim number 18. He claims that 100 people died in elderly homes in norway, after receiving the vaccine research, the deaths were reviewed.

These deaths particularly were reviewed by a group of experts and published in the journal of norwegian medical association, the norwegian medical association. The review concluded that for the majority of nursing home patients, there was no connection between the vaccine and subsequently dying, keep in mind. This was a nursing home. On average, 400 people die from different causes each week in nursing homes uh in norway.

Now the russian media also used this 100 norwegian death claim to prove that western vaccines are not fair, are not safe. However, this is not the first time that the russian media has run misinformation campaigns against western vaccines according to the guardian uh, the uh, with with uh well, essentially with investigations made with russian connections. Uh there were determinations that health and science, youtubers and bloggers were paid to falsely tell followers. The pfizer vaccine is uh, causes 3x, the deaths of astrazeneca, and that is responsible for hundreds of deaths.

China, by the way, does the same thing where the new york times just last week exposed travel youtubers in china from promoting positive travel experiences in china while being paid by the communist party of china and then fake comments being posted. Like ah preparing my trip to shanghai misinformation is so so uncommon. Unfortunately, in our society these days, it's very dangerous claim number 19, dr peter mccullough talks about the prevalence of myocarditis and young boys. After receiving the vaccine.

He says we will see more and more cases. All the way up to 50 years old, oh unfortunately, here for peter mccullough. The latest data we have is that there were 877 confirmed cases of myocarditis out of 86, a million doses and most of the results of myocarditis were mild symptoms and led to a rapid clinical recovery within three months. These these are known symptoms of the vaccination.

So this is correct, but we're not seeing people drop dead off of uh of myocarditis. There have been some deaths, but they are far and few between relative to those who have mild symptoms and then recover, naturally without medical treatment. Now it's also worth noting that there is a lot of evidence that individuals, administering vaccine vaccines should consider aspirating the uh their needles, essentially prior to administering a vaccine to make sure that they are not injecting directly into a blood vessel. The way this works is needle goes in pull back a little bit to see if any blood enters into the um into the syringe.

If it does, you may have hit a blood vessel, and this this syringe should now be thrown away and a new one should be used uh, because the last thing you want to do is pump this mrna vaccine directly into somebody's heart, because that is what could Lead to myocarditis, so there is a belief that a lot of this could be due to uh improper uh vaccination rather than uh, rather than something that uh. That is much more common, uh and unpreventable, and also leading to death. So uh claim number twenty now peter mccullough claims that vaccines do nothing to prevent the spread of covet and only protect individuals who receive the vaccine. Now.

Uh to this i actually somewhat agree with peter mccullough. We saw with delta that uh we could still get breakthrough cases and breakthrough spread of covet and we're definitely seeing that with omicron. And this is really a good argument against vaccine mandates, because it should really be individuals deciding whether or not to protect themselves rather than uh create some sort of hurt immunity, because we're not really seeing that vaccinated individuals are not able to spread covet. Claim number 21.

Uh occurs when dr peter mccullough talks about monoclonal antibodies again, and he gives some anecdotes about people he knows and his own experiences of not being able to get immonoclonal antibodies again uh. Yes, i completely agree that the government failed at uh making sure that we have enough of these available claim. Number 22 dr peter mccullough seems to be a big fan. Mccullough seems to be a big fan of ivermectin as a treatment.

Ivermectin has been true proven to not help dramatically against covet. There are some unpeer-reviewed studies that do suggest that there could be a benefit to using ivermectin. Obviously the uh more left-leaning media has slandered ivermectin a lot frequently referring to it as a horse dewormer, but it has been used for for humans for other purposes before there is a risk to taking large doses of ivermectin. We do know this, but, most importantly, there hasn't been shown to be a peer-reviewed study that clinically proves that ivermectin absolutely helps us reduce the uh.

The incidence of covet or the the dangerousness of of covet claim number 23. Is that dr peter mccullough claims that the sri lankan government reached out to him asking how to stop the spread of covet, and apparently he told them to use ivermectin and after that case is dropped significantly? Now the new england journal of medicine tells us that randomized controlled trials have have multiple times over shown no clinical benefit in ivermectin and there's no study, no citation, no government letter, nothing. That shows at least that i could find that sri lanka is actually using ivermectin. This is very similar to the nasal spray claim that we can make these claims of like bangladesh, using these or mexico using hydroxide chloroquine and everybody following his advice, is doing well, but when we actually do research on them, it's very difficult for us to find hard Conclusions that support dr mccullough's claims now bottom line out of all of this.

A lot of this is a very dramatic interview without a lot of really hardcore evidence. I think if we can narrow this down and just agree that a our government sucks, they should be a lot better at providing earlier treatment, better preventative treatment, better educational, masking, better requirements for hepa filtration, which again might all be not terribly necessary right now, if omicron Takes over and ends up being a nothing burger which knock on wood. Hopefully it is then uh then, and the pandemic ends great. Then all of this doesn't matter anyway, but uh.

I i you know if i had to grade these 23 claims on on uh research and statistical factualness, maybe a d uh, it's just not very good. It's it's uh more emotionally charged and uh. Unfortunately, i i don't know that all of the information uh really should be broadcast, without fact checking. So i have to say i was a little bit disappointed again.

There are parts where i agree with dr peter mccullough, and i made those very clear in here. You can review my research in the links down below and in the meantime i appreciate you for watching this. If you found this helpful, consider sharing it and folks see in the next one thanks bye.