Peter McCullough: The Current Corruption and Dysfunction of the “House of Medicine.”

Dr. Peter McCullough's summary of the current corruption and dysfunction of the "House of Medicine." Shocking and horrifying account of what really ails us.

In the first half of this talk, McCullough tells the sordid tale of power and corruption. How we got into this mess. Then he addresses some of the damage:

The vaccines didn't work. They didn't stop anybody from getting COVID. They didn't stop transmission. Our CDC director came out and said that early. And they didn't reduce the severity of disease. They're not going to prevent a recurrence right now. There's a fear media campaign right now saying everyone should take more shots because more COVID is coming.

They failed on all four counts. They failed on all four counts and I think America would have accepted an apology. America would have been very forgiving. The world would have been okay with that if they were safe, but it turns out the vaccines, as many of you know, aren't safe.

As we sit here today, we have 3,400 peer-reviewed papers describing fatal and non-fatal vaccine injury symptoms in the National Library of Medicine. It is not controversial It's not a theory. It is real. These vaccines cause very real side effects and they're in four major categories. One is cardiovascular and cardio--heart inflammation myocarditis, cardiac arrest. Number two is neurologic, all forms of stroke, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, neuropathy. Number three: blood clotting like we've never seen in medicine before. Blood clots that don't respond to typical blood thinners that are just a disaster. And number four: immune system abnormalities.

In the final segment, McCullough discusses the link between excess vaccinations (he has had 67 over his life), autism and transgender ideology.

Continue ReadingPeter McCullough: The Current Corruption and Dysfunction of the “House of Medicine.”

Insurance Actuaries and Canadian Doctors: Why Are So Many Young People Dying?

Insurance actuaries are sounding the alarm. What is going on?

Life insurance actuaries are reporting that many more people are dying – still – than in the years before the pandemic. And while deaths during COVID-19 had largely occurred among the old and infirm, this new wave is hitting prime-of-life people hard.

No one knows precisely what is driving the phenomenon, but there is an inexplicable lack of urgency to find out. A concerted investigation is in order.

Deaths among young Americans documented in employee life insurance claims should alone set off alarms. Among working people 35 to 44 years old, a stunning 34% more died than expected in the last quarter of 2022, with above-average rates in other working-age groups, too.

“COVID-19 claims do not fully explain the increase,” a Society of Actuaries report says.

Continue ReadingInsurance Actuaries and Canadian Doctors: Why Are So Many Young People Dying?

Disturbing Revelations about the Pericarditis/Myocarditis Pathway Subsequent to Receiving mRNA COVID Vaccines

I was vaccinated twice and boosted once. I now regret receiving all of those shots, and it goes well beyond and rampant scientific and public health fraud being revealed, including the outrageous paper orchestrated by Anthony Fauci, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.”  And see here and here.  I'm not a scientist or a doctor, but I can see and hear and follow these discussions. We were told none of these things prior to being compelled to take these shots (except by Brett Weinstein, on a video that was pulled down by Youtube).

So here we now are. I am among a growing number of people concerned about the long-term hazards of these treatments, which were touted as "safe." Here are the most recent revelations. First, this discussion involving biologists Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying. The podcast focuses on commentary by Dr. John Campbell, an admission by Dr. Paul Offit and a new Swiss active-surveillance study: "Sex-specific differences in myocardial injury incidence after COVID-19 mRNA-1273 Booster Vaccination."

What do the Pfizer spokesmen not how ro say about the causal pathway from the "safe" vaccination it produced for COVID? They have no public answer. Rather than provide an answer, they purposefully and shamelessly obstruct and deflect:

Notice how they blatantly obstruct and deflect when they were asked for evidence that Pfizer vaccine decreases transmission of COVID from person to person.  They simply don't give a shit about either safety or accuracy of public health pronouncements.

Back to the issue of myocarditis and pericarditis.  First, some definitions.

Myocarditis: "Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle (myocardium). The inflammation can reduce the heart's ability to pump blood. Myocarditis can cause chest pain, shortness of breath, and rapid or irregular heart rhythms (arrhythmias)."

Pericarditis: "Pericarditis is swelling and irritation of the thin, saclike tissue surrounding the heart (pericardium). Pericarditis often causes sharp chest pain. The chest pain occurs when the irritated layers of the pericardium rub against each other."

Commentary by Dr. John Campbell on the new study: Based on this brand new high-quality active surveillance study one person out of 35 who received the Moderna booster incurred vaccine-related heart injuries:

If Regulators around the world don't take notice of the information I'm about to give via this paper, then they are at best in my view negligent at worst they don't even want to think about it. After receiving Moderna booster vaccines in a trial done in Switzerland--there were 777 working people followed up with 777 controls--5.1 percent of those who had the booster vaccine had increased troponins, indicating cardiomyocyte damage. So 5.1% increased cardiac marker damage, chemicals in the blood. 2.8 percent of the 777--that is one in 35--one in 35--had vaccine-associated myocardial injury. Quite astounding and incredible.

This is the result of receiving the Moderna booster. Many of us received two shots prior to receiving the booster. Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying suggest that one who receives all three shots have even higher risk of sustaining heart damage--greater than 1 out of 35 and just because you don't experience short term damage does not mean that you are out of the woods. I was horrified to hear the entire podcast of Weinstein and Heying. If I know there was even a 1 out of 1,000 risk of sustaining heart damage by receiving one shot, I would have refused any of this "treatment." None of us were warned, however. This is the opposite of informed consent.

How many of the elite athletes collapsing (some of them severely injured or dead) were caused by the vaccines? Many people actively do not want to know and do not want to report any of this. What concerns me is that there seems to be a coordinated nonchalance about whether the COVID vaccines are causing the increase in cardiac arrests.

Here is the entire podcast featuring the discussion of Weinstein & Heying:

I posted the John Campbell video on FB with a quote by Campbell. Instead of allowing me to post it, here's what happened:

When you click the "See Why" button:

Who are these "Independent fact-checkers" who know so much more than Dr. John Campbell? Facebook does not disclose this. Are they former employees of the FBI or CIA or DHS? If so, are they consciously adhering to a narrative dictated by the U.S. Government? I'd like to know.

From Linked In:

Nurse currently working in A and E with a demonstrated history in Nurse Education. Skilled in pratical Nursing, Healthcare, Nursing Research, and Health and Educational research. Strong healthcare services professional with two higher degrees and several teaching qualifications. Research record focused in teaching bioscience in national and international nurse education.

More about Campbell . . . 

Continue ReadingDisturbing Revelations about the Pericarditis/Myocarditis Pathway Subsequent to Receiving mRNA COVID Vaccines

Transgender Medicine, British Approach versus American. Bari Weiss interviews BBC reporter Hannah Barnes. Topic: On what Tavistock’s closure means for youth gender care around the world. Excerpt:

BW: When you look at your reporting from a ten-thousand-foot view, do you think what happened at Tavistock is a unique scandal, or do you think the real scandal is how normalized this kind of medicalized treatment among young people has become?

HB: These are professional people who’ve dedicated their working lives to helping young people, and what they were saying boils down to: this is not good clinical practice. This isn’t how we’ve ever practiced in other places we’ve worked. Somehow, because this is a gender clinic, the same questions that we would ask normally were not welcome...

So, I’m going to start with my understated Britishness by saying that I avoid using the word scandal because we don’t know yet what the scale might be because we just don’t have the data. We know that some people have been harmed and we know that some people have been helped, and we just don’t know the numbers either way. But what I think is really striking is that people who worked in the clinic, who did those assessments, who made those referrals, fear they have played a part in a huge medical scandal. So I’m just going to start with that caveat. What I would say is that, yes, we have a different healthcare system here in the UK than the U.S., but the evidence base is the same wherever young people live in the world, and the evidence base is weak. No one has been able to replicate the findings of the Dutch team that pioneered this approach. Now, those studies have come under much more scrutiny, and those findings themselves are not strong. And yet that is the basis, really, for gender-affirming medical care in young people in its entirety. So, is what happened at the Tavistock clinic happening elsewhere? Absolutely. . . . This area of healthcare has avoided any of the normal scrutiny one would expect, particularly when dealing with children and with a drug that’s being used off-label. The questions and scrutiny that would normally apply from healthcare commissioners, from politicians, from society, and from the media, they just weren’t asked. And I think that’s what’s gone wrong. Collectively, there has been this fear that if you questioned the standard of care here, that you’re somehow questioning the patient population. We wouldn’t have some great cancer hospital applying treatments which haven’t gone through clinical trials and don’t appear to have any evidence of them working. That’s not attacking people with cancer. That’s attacking the system. It’s really strange that any scrutiny is seen as hateful when actually the reverse is true. Because if gender clinics and society and medicine can get this right, then care will be better both for patients who will thrive as trans adults, and for those for whom it won’t be the right pathway. It’s going to be better for everybody.

BW: Here in the U.S., this feels like a very partisan issue. I don’t think it actually is, but I think it feels that way to a lot of people. Hannah, why is this topic and conversation so important?

HB: It’s important because they’re children. It’s the rest of their lives, and adults need to protect children. Absolutely trans people face real transphobia and bigotry. But actually, the current system isn’t serving trans people very well. The adults need to come back into the room. It’s the job of adults to say no, and that’s not saying no to every one of these young people, because it’s more complicated than that. There is a lot of nuance and there’s this real desire for certainty, like “ban puberty blockers or everyone has them.” But the welfare of children is everybody’s responsibility. The judge of a civilized society is how we protect the most vulnerable.

Continue Reading