TRIGGER WARNING: Exposing Joe Rogan's Doctor McCullough

everyone me 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 covet

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 rem deserve 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 desavier were hospitalized

compared to the placebo group who

received uh or where five point three

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 they're 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

n number or research with the largest

amount of uh

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

percent 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

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 a

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 colluded 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. uh 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 corona

virus 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 covet

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

now 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 has 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 and

traveling restaurants bars parties

whatever

there is a single solution offered by

authorities and this i agree with peter

mccullough on 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 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

linked 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 covered 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 zone 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 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 dropped to 23 that's not ideal uh

you want to get back to that 75 level

with the boosters and 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 fifty percent 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 claim and then

provide actual third 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 igniting

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

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

covet 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 coveted

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 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 uh 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 that great but 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 peanut

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 coven 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

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 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 fifteen the doctor claims that

once you have coveted you were 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 pfizer or mordor so you

can absolutely get covered 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 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 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 thousands

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

mckellar 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 a 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

oh 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 uh 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 one 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

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 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

monoclonal antibodies again

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 has

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

hydroxyl 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

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