Category: Courageous Discourse

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Throughout the pandemic we have heard the tenuous phrase “correlation is not causation.” I can tell you as an epidemiologist, we always look at the strength and consistency of associations in addition to many other factors in the evaluation of determinants of disease. In the 1970s, the rate of autism was 1 in 10,000 and the rate today has exploded to 1 in 36. Most cases develop early in the childhood years where there has been a massive expansion of the CDC ACIP routine vaccine schedule. In 2004, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, issued this statement on the vaccine-autism issue.

DeLong in 2010 outlined the rationale why childhood vaccination may be a determinant for autism in this well cited review:

“There are several reasons why vaccines may trigger autism. Certain vaccines contain thimerosal, a preservative that is almost half mercury (Hg) by weight, which was shown to be associated with adverse effects including autism. Nataf et al. (2006) found that children with autism have higher levels of precoproporphyrin, a biomarker for Hg toxicity, than neurotypical children. This finding was confirmed by Geier and Geier (2007) and Geier et al. (2009) in the United States, Austin and Shandley (2008) in Australia, and Youn et al. (2010) in Korea. Thimerosal-containing hepatitis B shots were associated with delayed acquisitions of vital reflexes in baby macaques (Hewitson et al. 2010). Although thimerosal was removed from many vaccines from 2000, it is still present in almost all influenza shots as well as eight other U.S. vaccines given to children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010). In addition, the CDC began in the early 2000s to encourage the inoculation of pregnant women and children aged 6 to 23 months against influenza (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001; 2002). Given the increased use of influenza shots containing thimerosal, children’s exposure to Hg via vaccines was likely increased in utero but not decreased after fetuses were born, even though thimerosal was removed from other vaccines.

There are other possible links between vaccines and autism besides Hg. Vaccines also contain the neurotoxin aluminum (Al) as well as live viruses. The Al in vaccines has been associated with disorders in the central nervous system (Authier et al. 2001) as well as with autism (Blaylock 2008). Combining Hg and Al magnifies the toxicity of each (Haley 2005). Both metals also are known to suppress the immune system (Havarinasab et al. 2005); thus, a susceptible person may not be able to mount an effective immunological response to the live viruses found in certain vaccines such as the measles–mumps–rubella shot. Measles containing vaccines stimulate the production of cytokines that inflame and damage the brain, possibly contributing to autism (Ashwood et al. 2004; Vargas et al. 2005; Singh 2009).”

With that backdrop, autism prevalence by U.S. state, the number of 8-yearold students classified with either (1) autism or (2) speech or language impairments (speech disorders) was divided by the total number of 8-year-olds in the state. The number of children with disabilities came from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (2007) and the total number of students came from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Vaccination status was obtained from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago who conducted random surveys of parents with children aged 19 to 35 months. NORC follows up the telephone interview with a written survey to the vaccination provider. The survey reaches approximately 30,000 households with children of the appropriate age. Starting in 1995, the CDC reports the percentage of young children who have received the 4:3:1:3:3 series of shots, which consists of at least four doses of the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (or diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis) vaccine, three doses of poliovirus vaccine, one dose of any measles-containing vaccine, three doses of the Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine, and three doses of hepatitis B vaccine. These data were publicly available from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics 2007). The results were striking.

By JOHN LEAKE

As I have written in previous posts, between January 31—February 4, 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci exchanged several e-mails with a group of eminent virologists and infectious disease specialists including Jeremy Farrar, Kristian Andersen, Michael Farzan, and Robert Garry in which they discussed the recently published SARS-CoV-2 genome.

As they stated in their initial remarks, all of them thought the genome displayed signs of having been manipulated in a lab. Especially notable was the spike protein’s furin cleavage site—a feature that enables it to use furin, a common enzyme in human lung cells, to aid in binding to the cells to initiate infection and replication. As the virologists recognized, this feature of SARS-CoV-2 is NOT found in SARS‐CoV or other lineage B coronaviruses.

As Andersen memorably put it in his January 31, 2020 e-mail to Fauci and Farrar:

Eddie, Bob, Mike [Edward Holmes, Robert Garry, Michael Farzan] and myself all find the genome [of SARS-CoV-2] inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.

For reasons that still aren’t clear, Andersen, Holmes, and Garry all felt compelled—at this exact same time—to write a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and a paper for Nature Medicine in which they stated that the genome IS consistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. On February 4, they circulated a draft copy of their Nature Medicine paper (The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2) to Dr. Fauci and colleagues, seeking their comments.

After these confidential emails were released pursuant to a FOIA request, a controversy erupted on the question of WHY, in their public assurances, these eminent virologists stated the exact opposite of what they’d just stated in private communications with Anthony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar.

They claimed that, in a very short period of time, they acquired new information that prompted them to change their perception of the novel virus, but to date, none of them have offered a persuasive account of what precisely caused them to change their minds.

As the controversy became heated, the discussion centered on the precise meaning of the word engineered—a word that Andersen himself used in his January 31, 2020 email to Fauci:

The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome [0.1%] so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially look engineered).

Later, Andersen and his colleagues emphasized that in a virology context, “engineering” refers to the process inserting and deleting nucleotides in the virus’s genetic code. This, it seems, is the kind of work that someone in a BSL lab in a country with military ambitions might be tempted to do in order to create a bioweapon.

Andersen et al. insisted that SARS-CoV-2 did NOT display signs of this kind of engineering, and because President Trump vocalized the idea that SARS-CoV-2 was a bioweapon, half the country (in its weirdly programmed way) automatically and categorically rejected this proposition.

However, hiding in plain sight was Dr. Fauci’s February 4, 2020 email, which he wrote upon seeing the early draft of the proximal origin paper. His composed his commentary in the form of a pithy question:

?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice

Like the salient fact that (of all places) SARS-CoV-2 broke out in the city of Wuhan near the Wuhan Institute of Virology—where gain of function work was being performed on SARS coronaviruses—Serial Passage is yet another Elephant in the Room that these eminences assiduously ignored in their proximal origin paper.

As Wikipedia defines it:

Serial passage is the process of growing bacteria or a virus in iterations. For instance, a virus may be grown in one environment, and then a portion of that virus population can be removed and put into a new environment. This process is repeated with as many stages as desired, and then the final product is studied, often in comparison with the original virus.

This sort of facilitated transmission is often conducted in a laboratory setting, because it is of scientific interest to observe how the virus or bacterium that is being passed evolves over the course of the experiment. In particular, serial passage can be quite useful in studies that seek to alter the virulence of a virus or other pathogen. One consequence of this is that serial passage can be useful in creating vaccines, since scientists can apply serial passage and create a strain of a pathogen that has low virulence, yet has comparable immunogenicity to the original strain.^[1] This can also create strains that are more transmissible in addition to lower virulence, as demonstrated by A/H5N1 passage in ferrets

Regarding SARS coronaviruses, Wikipedia states:

Another study by Kanta Subbaro involved a serial passage experiment in which mice were infected with SARS. SARS usually does not make mice particularly sick, however, after the virus had undergone serial passage in the mice, it had become lethal.

At an April 4-6, 2018 symposium, at UNC Chapel Hill, Professor Ralph Baric explicitly talked about performing this process with SARS Coronaviruses on ACE-2 Transgenic Mice in a lecture he gave titled Imagining the Next Flu Pandemic – and Preventing it!. To view this specific segment of his talk, advance the timer to 10:18. Also interesting is his discussion, starting at about 18:00, on how serial passage can result in a SARS coronavirus that is far more lethal to old mice than it is the young.

Author’s Note: If you found this post interesting and informative, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our Substack. For just $5.00 per month, you can really help to support Dr. McCullough and I in our ongoing efforts to discover and report the truth about our confusing world.

Share

By JOHN LEAKE

Actor Jamie Foxx is not only a much loved public figure, he was also, at the age of 55, in excellent physical condition just prior to being rushed (in April 2023) to hospital after suffering from an “unspecified medical complication.” Foxx had recently been in Atlanta on the set of a new Netflix film titled Back in Action.

About a year ago, Mr. Foxx told Dr. McCullough that he had profound misgivings about the COVID-19 vaccine. Though he did not solicit Peter’s advice, Peter nevertheless encouraged him to hold out in the event that he came under film industry pressure to receive it.

On May 16, 2023, ABC News reported that he was, according to TMZ Online, in a rehabilitation center (apparently for stroke and brain injury patients) after his hospital release. On May 30, celebrated New York gossip columnist, A.J. Benza, told Dr. Drew that—according to a hospital informant—Jamie Fox suffered a stroke after being compelled to receive the COVID-19 shot in order to remain on the cast of Back in Action.

To be sure, Mr. Benza is a gossip columnist and not a renowned investigative journalist. It seems to me that the best way to end the gossip and speculation is for Mr. Foxx’s family to clarify what happened to him in a candid statement. If he did NOT receive the COVID-19 vaccine before being hospitalized with an “unspecified medical complication” clarifying this could at least partly dispel the rumors.

This seems like a fitting moment to share my favorite scene in all of Jamie Foxx’s brilliant acting career—surely one of the best pieces of screenwriting and acting in cinematic history.

By JOHN LEAKE

Because my co-author, Dr. McCullough, is a consummate scholar who wishes to maintain a scholarly tone, I try to resist the temptation to comment on social and political controversies. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us, the same globalist ninnies who drove the disastrous pandemic response are working overtime to destabilize every sensible custom, habit, and arrangement in order to replace them with bizarre, ideological notions of what is best for mankind and the planet.

This morning I received a link to an interesting report by Jon Miltimore at the Foundation for Economic Education about how Anheuser-Busch is, to some degree, the victim of the globalist model of “Stakeholder Capitalism” and its ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) ratings board.

The article reminded me of a question I’ve been contemplating for three years—namely, Have most of America’s college graduates lost their minds?

The most notable feature about the Bud Light controversy and volumes of commentary about it is the total absence of working class consumers from the conversation.

It reminds me of anthropologists in Papua New Guinea observing the behavior of tribesmen in the jungle without even attempting to talk to them. 

My younger brother is a general contractor and he estimates that his crew spent a significant percentage of their annual income on Bud Light—an inexpensive, low-alcohol beer that is refreshing to drink in hot and humid weather. As far as the brand is concerned, they fondly remember the “This Bud’s For You” era that conveyed the idea that guys like them are worthy of respect and earn the right to enjoy cold beers with friends. 

All of them were bewildered by the advertisement—literally had no idea what it was about, as though they were trying to interpret an an ancient Greek inscription. It seems to me that it’s precisely guys like these—guys who did not go to college, but learned a skilled trade—who have retained contact with reality.

They understand the essential facts of life, because they actually work for a living and must (every day) reckon with bills that have to be paid. No TARP or Quantitative Easing or CARES Act bailouts for them when they do something stupid and reckless.

Yes, a large swath of American college graduates have indeed lost their minds. They now find themselves locked into a daily Laocoon-like struggle with total nonsense that they have somehow failed to recognize and reject.

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

I noticed with the Omicron outbreak that many patients had a sore throat rather than nasal congestion as the first symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. When I typically get a cold, I usually have a sore throat for several days before the full-blown upper respiratory symptoms develop. I wondered if any of the any of the commercially available gargles had evidence in combatting COVID-19.

Iakov et al performed a comprehensive review of in vitro and clinical studies. The bottom line is that virtually every gargle studied had efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. The advantages of gargling early include: 1) reducing the viral burden of illness, 2) potentially reducing the spread, 3) alleviating symptoms. My experience has been that nasal sprays (effective products as reviewed on America Out Loud Nasal Hygiene Summit) accompanied by 30 second gargles of the solutions presented in the Iakov review are effective provided they are started very early at the initial onset of symptoms.

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

We are constantly being barraged by fear-mongering messages about a “next pandemic” as if new global catastrophes have been put on a schedule. I have remarked that it would be quite difficult to anticipate an organism arriving from nature and afflicting the entire world’s population of any mammal, let alone man.

Neumann and Kawaoka published a review of past pandemics, a broad list of viral threats, and then indicated that the likely winner would be a zoonosis (virus that jumped from a bat or rodent) to a human. Additionally, for human to human spread it would need to be airborne and highly contagious. We learned with the fizzled Monkeypox scare that homo- bi-sexual transmission from man to man was not enough the scare the world into mass vaccination or hold the public captive very long in the news cycle. President Biden dropped the US Monkeypox Emergency in January 31, 2023 with no press release.

The list of possibilities for future pandemics is listed in the table. Most have no antiviral therapy that is specific, however, the authors fail to mention viricidal nasal sprays/gargles, vitamin D, curcumin, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, famotidine, or other agents to mitigate viral specific inflammation such as maraviroc and nonspecific agents including corticosteroids and colchicine.