by Dr. Joseph Mercola
December 21, 2021
Of the COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., none received adequate and/or
early-enough treatment. At least 85% of COVID deaths were
There are three components to SARS-CoV-2 infection:
necessitating a multidrug approach, and treatment must begin early
to be effective
Research published in 2006 showed hydroxychloroquine reduced viral
replication of SARS-CoV-1 (the original SARS virus). It also has
well-established anti-inflammatory properties. These two properties
help explain its usefulness against COVID-19
There were clear intentional efforts to prevent use of
hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19, likely in an effort to make the
COVID jabs appear necessary
You cannot get COVID-19 twice; those with natural immunity have
robust, long-lasting immunity. The Pfizer COVID shot, meanwhile, has
been shown to have undetectable effectiveness 201 days after the
second dose and Moderna's effectiveness reaches zero around day 121
If you could only listen to one podcast to get up to speed on
COVD-19, you are in luck as one of the top clinicians in the world
on understanding COVID-19, Dr. Peter McCullough, finally made his
way to the largest podcast in the world (watch
below video), Joe Rogan and, as expected,
it was epic...
You will do yourself a serious disservice if you don't
watch the entire, nearly three-hour, interview at normal speed.
McCullough is an internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, and in
this podcast, he reviews and summarizes what we know about the
McCullough also discusses the importance of early treatment,
which has been universally suppressed and ignored from the start.
He's convinced, and states unequivocally in this interview, that of
the COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., none received adequate and/or
early-enough treatment. In short, people did not, and certainly
don't now, need to die from this infection, barring some serious
It's treatable, and later variants, such as Delta and Omicron,
appear generally milder than the original virus, resulting in even
From early on, researchers and clinicians
demonstrated that early treatment, be it with
ivermectin or steroids and anticoagulants - in some combination - resulted in far better outcomes and saved lives.
When you just let the infection run its course without treatment,
most COVID-19 patients were riddled with blood clots and other
complications by the time they were hospitalized.
McCullough, we know that at least 85% of all COVID deaths could have
been avoided with early treatment...
Early Treatment Is Key
In August 2020, McCullough's landmark paper "Pathophysiological
Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2
Infection" was published online in the American Journal of
It was the first published report on how to treat COVID on an
outpatient basis and described a comprehensive COVID treatment
protocol for frontline doctors.
Before this, there were about 4,000
papers discussing the potential benefit of various remedies, but
none that actually sought to present a comprehensive protocol for
A follow-up paper, "Multifaceted Highly Targeted Sequential
Multidrug Treatment of Early Ambulatory High-Risk SARS-CoV-2
Infection (COVID-19)" published in Reviews in Cardiovascular
Medicine in December 2020, 2 became the basis for an AAPS home
Importantly, McCullough and the team of collaborators he put
together understood early on that there were three components to
this infection: viral replication, cytokine storm and blood
clotting, therefore necessitating a multidrug approach.
One drug that gained early attention was hydroxychloroquine, as
research published in 2006 showed it reduced viral replication of
SARS-CoV-1 (the original SARS virus).
It also has well-established
It's been routinely used in the
treatment of lupus, for example. But as explained by McCullough,
there were clear intentional efforts to prevent use of the drug
The U.S. government refused to release its stockpiles, and doctors
were told they'd lose their medical license if they used it.
largest manufacturing plant of hydroxychloroquine even mysteriously
burned down, and in South Africa, "mercenaries" were breaking into
pharmacies and burning the drug.
In addition to that, a fraudulent paper was published in the journal
Lancet, falsely stating that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous.
looked like it was a step to bury hydroxychloroquine as a
treatment," McCullough says.
When focus shifted to
drug also became inaccessible and was widely vilified as "horse
the mainstream media.
Treatment Was Suppressed for a Reason
Considering the overwhelming success doctors have had in treating
the infection with these and other drugs,
Why aren't hospitals
everywhere doing it?
Why have health authorities fought against
treatment in general, and the use of hydroxychloroquine and
ivermectin in particular?
In McCullough's words:
"It seems to me, early on, there was an intentional, very
comprehensive suppression of early treatment in order to promote
fear, suffering, isolation, hospitalization and death.
And it seemed
to be completely organized and intentional in order to create
acceptance for and then promote mass 'vaccination'."
The plan to create acceptance for novel mRNA gene transfer
technology in lieu of a conventional vaccine by suppressing
treatment options has been explained in detail in Dr. Peter Breggin's book, "COVID-19 and the Global Predators
- We Are the
Prey," 3 and Pamela Popper's book, "COVID
Operation - What Happened, Why It Happened and What's Next." 4
McCullough recommends both, if
you want to understand how this was coordinated and planned.
Robert Kennedy Jr.'s book, "The Real Anthony Fauci" also shows,
using extensive documentation, that Moderna was working on an mRNA
injection for COVID-19 well before the world even knew it existed.
He reveals extensive collusion occurred to push this novel gene
transfer technology on the world, with devastating effects.
When asked why more doctors aren't using these early treatment
protocols, McCullough points out that of the 1 million or so doctors
in the U.S., probably only 500 or so actually understand that viable
treatments are being suppressed with the intent to drive uptake of
the gene transfer shots.
Those relatively few who do understand
what's going on face censorship and the threat of having their
medical license removed if they speak out about treatment.
Questions About Re-infection Linger
A widespread concern that Rogan brings up is whether or not you can
actually get COVID twice.
According to McCullough, the answer is a
You might think you have it twice, because
you've tested positive, but we now know that the false positive rate
PCR testing is about 97%...
After intense pressure to produce evidence of re-infection, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally admitted they
don't have a single verified case of someone getting sick with COVID
To prove reinfection, McCullough says, you'd need to have a positive
PCR test at a cycle threshold below 28 (not 40 or 45, as is
routinely done, which is why the false positive rate is 97%), and a
positive antigen immunoassay test to show that you actually had
antibodies from the first infection, and a gene sequencing test
showing you in fact have the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
What's more, dozens of studies confirm that natural immunity is
robust and long-lasting.
"So why is there so much resistance to the
idea that people have natural immunity?" Rogan asks, to which
McCullough replies, "All roads lead to
Dr. Robert Malone disagrees with McCullough on this issue, pointing
a December 4, 2021, study showing 12% out of a sample of 1,200
individuals experienced COVID reinfection. 5
In a Twitter post, Malone said: 6
"I have caught it twice, as has my wife. I was asymptomatic, she was
This is a rapidly mutating RNA virus. Just like the common
cold. The symptoms will not be as severe - but yes, people catch it
more than once. Even Delta ..."
Relative Versus Absolute Risk Reduction
Now, when it comes to the efficacy of these COVID shots, the
manufacturers have employed a classic strategy to mislead the masses
and make the shots sound far better than they actually are.
strategy is looking at relative risk reduction rather than absolute
While the COVID shots boasted efficacy rates between 67% and 95% at
the outset, those were the relative risk reductions. The four
available COVID shots in the U.S. provide an absolute risk reduction
between just 0.7% and 1.3%. 7,8
Now, compare that to the non-institutionalized infection fatality
ratio across age groups, which is 0.26%. 9
Since the absolute risk
that needs to be overcome is lower than the absolute risk reduction
these injections can provide, mass vaccination simply cannot have a
Yet here we are, being told to get used to the
idea of getting booster shots at ever-increasing intervals. It just
doesn't add up.
Of course, as I've reported on several occasions, research and
clinical experience clearly show that the effectiveness of these
shots rapidly wanes.
Six months after the second dose, your
protection is nil...
Meanwhile, your body continues producing toxic
spike protein for at least 15 months after each dose.
Efficacy Rapidly Wanes
McCullough cites a Swedish study 10 published October 25, 2021, which
looked at data from 842,974 pairs, where each person who had
received two COVID jabs was paired and compared against an
unvaccinated individual, to see if the vaccinated had fewer
symptomatic cases and hospitalizations.
Early on, the double-jabbed appeared to have good protection, but
that quickly changed.
The Pfizer jab went from 92% effectiveness at
Day 15 through 30, to 47% at Day 121 through 180, and zero from Day
The Moderna shot had a similar trajectory, being
estimated at 59% from Day 181 onward.
The AstraZeneca injection had
a lower effectiveness out of the gate, waned faster than the mRNA
shots, and had no detectable effectiveness as of Day 121.
All the while, millions of Americans have already had COVID 11 and
have natural immunity that doesn't wane in this manner.
Yet they are
being shunned and fired for not complying with COVID jab mandates.
Again, it just doesn't add up...
Never before has a vaccine been
required for anyone with natural immunity against a disease, and
there's good reason for that. It's completely illogical.
Just like you don't need a measles vaccine if you've had measles,
you don't need a COVID shot if you've had COVID. In fact, you are at
increased risk of adverse events if you do take it.
Remember, if you
already have natural immunity, you're exposing yourself to the harms
of the shot with no hope of benefit...
The Most Dangerous Injections in Medical History
As explained in this interview, the COVID shots are the most
dangerous, most lethal drugs ever used - and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and CDC knew this as early as mid-February, when the
deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System
(VAERS) hit 182.
Historically, any drug with five unexplained deaths gets a black box
At 50 unresolved deaths, it's pulled from the market
None of that happened here.
To this day, the FDA and CDC
claim not a single death is attributable to the COVID shots, even as
the reported death toll is nearing 20,000 12 (including international
reports), with half of them occurring within 48 hours of the
Eighty percent occur within a week post-injection.
That is simply unheard of. The temporal association is stronger than
anything we've seen before. McCullough also cites research
concluding that in 86% of cases, there was no other explanation for
the death other than the COVID shot.
McCullough points out that in any given year, an average of 150
deaths following vaccination are reported to VAERS. That's 150
deaths from an average of 278 million vaccine doses given.
Here, we had 182 deaths at a point in time when only 27 million
doses had been administered. So, you cannot blame it on the volume
of shots given. The same trends can be found in other countries'
databases as well, such as the U.K.'s Yellow Card scheme.
What's more, vaccine side effects are notoriously underreported, so
as staggering as the VAERS data are, they're just the tip of the
Historically, only 1%
13 to 10% 14 of adverse effects are
For the COVID shots, the underreporting factor has been
calculated to be anywhere between 31 and 100.
That means that to get
a more accurate range, you have to multiply the VAERS number by 31
The absolute most-conservative estimate so far is an underreporting
factor of five.
That estimate came from an FDA whistleblower who
used Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to estimate the
underreporting in VAERS. 15
According to that whistleblower, the
number of Americans killed by the shots was at least 45,000 as of
July 9, 2021.
At that time, VAERS reported 9,048 deaths following
Who's at Greatest Risk for COVID Jab Side Effects?
As explained by McCullough, one of the reasons for this massive
death toll is the fact that the COVID shot introduces an
uncontrolled dose of spike protein into your body - a far greater
dose than what you get when naturally infected with the virus.
the spike protein is the most lethal part of the virus.
responsible for the most problematic symptoms of infection.
So, the shots are killing the same people that would be in dire
straits were they infected by the virus.
It's also killing some who
would likely fare OK with the wild virus but cannot handle the
excessive spike protein load produced by the COVID shot.
Consistent Data Point to Clear and Present Danger
As noted by McCullough, we have a very clear safety signal from
We also have clear biological plausibility, meaning we can
explain why and how people might be harmed by these shots. The data
are also internally and externally consistent, within VAERS and
databases in other countries.
The same patterns are seen everywhere.
Normally association does not mean causality unless very specific
criteria are met, and in the case of the COVID jabs, those criteria
are indeed met.
"We've fulfilled what's called the
criteria for causality," McCullough says.
In other words,
evidence that the injuries and deaths are not accidental...
shots are indeed injuring and killing people at unprecedented rates,
despite what the lying CDC states.
Myocarditis Will Likely Be Widespread
Interestingly, the shots appear to harm men and women differently.
Women are having far higher rates of neurological injuries, whereas
boys and young men account for some 80% of myocarditis (heart
Just how bad is the myocarditis wave?
Research published in 201716 calculated the background rate of
myocarditis in children and youth, showing it occurs at a rate of
four cases per million per year.
Assuming there are 60 million
American children, the background rate for myocarditis would be 240
cases a year.
How many cases of myocarditis have been reported to VAERS following
COVID injection so far?
16,918 as of December 3, 2021,
17 and it's
going up by several hundred to a couple of thousand every week.
We're also seeing myocarditis in adult men.
My fear is,
some of these kids
who develop myocarditis
will be in
the 13% category
where they have progressive
and heart failure.
Dr. Peter McCullough
"Doctors have never seen so many cases of myocarditis," McCullough
"It is frequent, and it is severe."
Patients require heart
medication, and must remain sedentary for extended periods of time.
While myocarditis is typically a nonfatal adverse event, it can
shave years off your life...
Research published in 2019 showed 13% of myocarditis cases ends up
with progressive heart failure.
Their hearts just never fully
recover from the damage.
In the study, another 36% improved but
never fully recovered.
"My fear is, some of these kids who develop myocarditis will be in
the 13% category where they have progressive left ventricle
dysfunction and heart failure," McCullough says.
While we don't yet know exactly how COVID jab myocarditis compares
to naturally-occurring myocarditis, the data we currently have
suggest the damage incurred by the spike protein is rather severe.
According to McCullough, 86% of youth who develop myocarditis in
response to the jab are sick enough to require hospitalization.
Research also shows young boys are far more likely to be
hospitalized with myocarditis than they are being hospitalized with
COVID-19, McCullough says.
If you've taken one or two COVID jabs months ago and nothing bad
happened, count your blessings.
You're among the lucky ones...!
persist in taking boosters, however, your luck is probably going to
run out at some point.
It's really only a matter of time before the
amount of spike protein in your system overwhelms it, producing
Again, evidence suggests the spike protein may remain for 15 months
post-injection. McCullough believes it will last at least a year
after each dose. If you start getting boosters every three to six
months, you're never going to get rid of that spike protein.
You'll be adding more and more with each dose, and it's the same
spike protein that causes problems in COVID-19.
If you fear
COVID-19, you ought to be just as fearful of the COVID shots, if not
more so, as you end up with far more spike protein from the shot
than you do from the natural infection.
At this point in time, the evidence is clearly weighing against the
They're causing far more harm than good, especially
among children, who are not at high risk of dying from COVID-19 in
the first place.
The full interview
Joe Rogan and Dr. Peter McCullough
Sources and References
Journal of Medicine January 2021; 134(1): 16-22
in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020; 21(4): 517-530
COVID-19 and the Global Predators
- We Are the
Operation - What Happened, Why It Happened and What's Next
December 4, 2021; 2021.07.20.21260855
Robert Malone December 16, 2021
2021; 57: 199
Lancet Microbe July 1, 2021; 2(7): E279-E280
of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
Preprints October 25, 2021
World in Data December 15, 2021
December 3, 2021
Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Civil
Action No: 2: 21-cv-00702-CLM (PDF)
of the American Heart Association November 18, 2017;
Adverse Events Reports as of November 19, 2021