US cardiologist (Dr. Peter McCullough) Makes False Claims about Covid-19 Vaccination!
Rémi Banet, AFP France Published on 09 April, Updated on Monday 26 April 2021
Copyright AFP 2017-2021. All rights reserved.
[comments by the author of this response are inside of brackets.]
A video of a cardiologist claiming that there is no reason for healthy people under the age of 50 (or those who have recovered from Covid-19) to be vaccinated against the virus has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times on social media. But 'medical experts' say younger people should be inoculated because they can still be AFFECTED by the virus, and that the shots also 'benefit' those who have already had the disease.
[What crap! "affected" can mean: the sniffles. The word is deliberately and deceitfully undefined, vague, non-specific and unquantifiable. As for the "benefit" conferred to the already sick-&-recovered, possessing natural immunity, notice that it also is as non-descriptive as "affected".
What benefit??? Quantify it! That's impossible because there are no scientific studies of any kind. So you should get a shot that can kill you in order to obtain a benefit that can't be described as anything of significant consequence, and any adverse reaction or death cannot be legally a basis to sue for damages since the drug companies have a congressional exemption from all financial liability. How do you feel about playing Russian roulette?]
Dr Peter McCullough said in testimony to the Senate of the US state of Texas around the 13-minute mark of the video: "People under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks, -there's no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated."
The video of the March 10, 2021 testimony was shared on Facebook by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, an organization described on its website as "fighting the good fight to preserve the practice of private medicine since 1943."
Its YouTube post of the video has been viewed more than 200,000 times.
The video was also shared via various websites, and shorter clips of the testimony circulated with French subtitles.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Health Canada and the World Health Organization all recommend vaccination against Covid-19.
[Those organizations have destroyed their reputations and credibility in all things covid.]
"As of April 9, 2021, more than 560,000 people in the United States and 23,000 people in Canada have died from Covid-19."
[That may be the greatest lie in human history. How so? Because of the deceitful substitution of the word "with" for the word "from". That wicked switch of words makes all the difference in the world.
It was stated from the White House podium almost from the beginning that all deaths of all people that tested positive would be counted as a covid death although they really did not die from covid, but instead merely tested positive for having been exposed to it or something like it, whether or not it was a live organism or merely fragments of dead DNA.
Almost all of those deaths "with covid" were due to underlying diseases, with obesity being at the top. In fact, it was found that only 6% of deaths were attributed on death certificates solely to covid-19.
Do they not know that commonly known fact? Which is more frightening; that they do not know it or that they are deliberately lying about it for some ulterior motive? Both are extremely disturbing, and it has to be one or the other.]
Multiple Covid-19 vaccines are being administered or are in trials around the world, and inaccurate claims about the shots are spreading across the internet.
[Ha! "inaccurate" can also apply to exaggeration of benefits, so 'inaccuracy' tells one nothing. How inaccurate, and in what way? No answer. They don't want you even asking the question.]
More than 174 million Covid-19 vaccine doses have been administered in the United States, and 7.4 million have been administered in Canada.
[SO WHAT?! Are we all supposed to follow the herd like good sheep, unquestioningly? How about also quoting the hundreds of thousands of reported adverse effects and the 13 thousand deaths reported to the government's Adverse Effects Reporting System? Don't they want to be fair and balanced?]
Below, AFP Fact Check examines three false claims made by McCullough:
'Healthy people younger than 50 do not need a Covid-19 vaccine': FALSE
The CDC says on its website that risk of severe disease from the novel coronavirus increases with age, [-with most deaths "with covid" being people over 80 years old] but National Center for Health Statistics data shows that people under age 50 account for four percent of deaths involving Covid-19.
[Seriously??? Four percent should raise ALARM BELLS!? Far more than four percent are obese and/ or have bad asthma and serious allergies. It may be that more than four percent die annually from flu…but miraculously it has vanished from the government's radar. How does that happen? By accident?]
And a March 26, 2021 article in Science also found that by mid-August 2020 "the resurgence in the United States was largely driven by adults 20 to 49 years of age."
[Again, with the gross dishonest distortion of language and fact. The "resurgence" is principally an increase of people who have been tested, and that increased population has shown an increase in positive test results. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE SICK! Solid numbers of people scientically found to have a live infection does not exist. Those "official" lying numbers are pure panic porn.]
Olivier Schwartz, head of the Virus and Immunity Unit at the Pasteur Institute, told AFP by phone: "It is obvious that people under 50 who are in good health should be vaccinated" because they can still be affected by the disease.
[No such thing is "obvious" since it is purely a faith-based conjecture based on unfounded and unproven assumptions. And please, can someone clearly explain exactly what "affected" means from a massive public health campaign perspective?
Does it mean they feel like they have a mild cold for a day or two? Who cares? All that matters is whether or not they are highly or moderately likely to die or suffer from severe illness. But they can't link that outcome to that under-50 category because it would be "obviously" a lie.]
Bruno Lina, professor of virology at the University of Lyon, said that the aim of a mass vaccination campaign is to reduce the transmission of a virus.
[That is incorrect. The "aim" is to reduce DEATHS! Reducing the transmission is the means. If DEATH is NOT the likely outcome for a significant percentage of the population, then the 'campaign' is non-emergeny, life should go on essentially as normal, and no medical procedure can be justified as mandatory.]
This [reducing the transmission] would not be 'effective' if only people over 50 years old received the vaccine. That is less than half the population, and "under these conditions, we will never slow down the circulation of the virus," he said.
[What exactly constitutes "effective"? No one can say. It can't be quantified and no one would dare attempt it with any credibility. How about this: if all older people were vaccinated, would then only the younger be at risk of death? They can't claim that because the death statistics are all weighted on the side of the elderly, and are almost zero for the younger.
They might in fact actually be zero if there were no younger people who were obese, who smoke, who get zero exercise, and who suffer from allegies and asthma, etc. Slowing the circulation of the virus is NOT a fundamental aim because if it is relatively non-life threatening then who cares? If it is deadly to only a sliver of the population then no one should suffer the crushing of their freedom and economic security because of a tiny few…many of whom are responsible for their own vulnerability.]
Both Schwartz and Lina said that while the Covid-19 vaccines currently authorized cannot guarantee that a person will not catch the disease, they have been shown to lessen symptoms and prevent death.
[Wow! What could be more vague than that? Lessen what symptoms?? You cannot get an answer nor even be advised as to the basis of the claim. What study can we study to learn the facts? But even worse is the undefined claim that the vaccines "prevent deaths".
Really? Among what segment of the population? Perhaps those over 85 who were already suffering from some chronic disease? Is there zero lessening of deaths among those much younger…as in 'average age' whatever that may be? If so, then the claim is a deception because those reading it will think that it applies to them when it does not.
They are caught by their own falsehoods about the vaccines, (which were sold to the public on only one basis; they will PREVENT infection and confere immunity). Now they have to admit that they were WRONG and that that was false. Yet you are still supposed to trust every newer claim that they make when they've lost their credibility with repeated falsehoods.]
Lina also explained that if a vaccinated person does contract Covid-19, the amount of virus present compared to an unvaccinated person is "16 times less," reducing the likelihood of transmission.
[ What garbage. Having the audacity to state a specific number like that shows that he is willing to deceive people with "information" that is not scientific in any way, and not corroborated by anyone. He is saying in effect that EVERYONE is the same; all get the exact same benefit, so you should join the protected crowd for that same claimed benefit. That is anti-science!]
AFP Fact Check has 'debunked' other claims from medical professionals from Texas, Canada and Belgium that vaccination against Covid-19 is unnecessary or should be halted.
[So they've "debunked" the claim that vaccination is "unnecessary", thereby establishing that it IS necessary. Please define exactly what "necessary" means in this context.
The 'fact-checkers' have proven(?) that unapproved experimental genetic manipulation injections are absolutely "necessary"?? How stupid are they to assuming that we are too unintelligent to recognize smoke & mirrors when we see them?]
People who have recovered from Covid-19 do not need the vaccine: FALSE
Around the 12-minute mark of his testimony, McCullough claims: "People who develop Covid have complete and durable immunity."
He goes on to say, "You can't beat natural immunity. You can't vaccinate on top of it and make it better. There's no scientific, clinical or safety rationale for ever vaccinating a Covid recovered patient."
However, an article in the journal BMJ found reinfection is possible.
[Ha-ha-ha! "possible" it says. How possible? Very possible, likely, highly probable, or one in a million chance? What kind of non-descript so-called 'science' is this??? Nothing is quantified! And what were the ages and conditions of those who's infection resurged? There is ZERO evidence that they were 'reinfected', and a very high probablility that the infection that abated simply resurged, like cancer does, (and several other diseases that can lie dormant for decades).]
Lina said that "we have the feeling today that the vaccine induces better immunity than certain natural infections."
[Well, that is a huge admission that what is being dispensed is NOT scientific but simply subjective 'feelings'. Intuition. Clairvoyance? Why should anyone trust their feelings? Does the FDA approve new drugs on the basis of their feelings? And what immunology expertise does he even have?
He said that for people with less symptomatic bouts of Covid-19, "we observe a rapid loss of antibody titer, and therefore a potential for reinfection faster than that observed with vaccination."
[Oh boy. "LESS symptomatic"! …"a POTENTIAL for reinfection faster…" uh…if a person is LESS symptomatic, or non-symptomatic, then they are hardly even sick, so a "potential" to get somewhat less symptomatically (or asymptomatically) 'ill' is irrelevant to them and to us. Oh, but that 'reinfection' might happen "faster"! Uh…so what? And what is the defined measure of "faster"? Hours, days, weeks? Is there any mention of "reinfection" being more severe or deadly? Let me know if you can find one.]
The Pasteur Institute's Schwartz also confirmed that people who have contracted Covid-19 have an interest in being vaccinated "because the antibody level decreases in all people."
[Uh… what exactly is the precise quantification of "decreases"? Is it 2% 10% 20%? And what was the size of the population, and their ages, that prompted this unquestionable conclusion? Don't ask for answers because they are not in the business of giving any. Nor have they mentioned that sickness always decreases anti-body levels because they are killed in the combat of fighting the invasion.
What he is dishonestly implying is that if you get an injection it will raise anti-body levels automatically. But how? The body's immune system already knows that anti-body levels have been diminished and need rebuilding, so you have to assume that one of the most intelligent systems in the biological world is too stupid to do that for its host and therefore needs a man-made intervention in order to do its job.]
He said that boosting antibody levels, even in those vaccinated, will be particularly important against variants "which need more antibodies to be neutralized."
[WOW! Yes, boosting antibody levels is great, but did you see in that statement any claim that thanks to vaccination that happens to people who have already recovered from covid and are healthy again? No, you didn't. But if it were a proven fact, why would he not promote that fact instead of giving that nebulous statement that does not actually claim what it implies?]
There are also "indications" that some people suffering from lingering symptoms of Covid-19, or "long Covid," have experienced relief after vaccination.
[Come on! "some people"??? You can't find such a term in any respectable scientific paper. What the heck are we supposed to assume? Two people in ten? Or maybe two people in a million? "some people" is even lower than a meaningless, contextless statistic!]
No evidence of asymptomatic spread of Covid-19: FALSE
McCullough testified: "One of the mistakes I heard today as a rationale for vaccinations is asymptomatic spread and I want you to be very clear about this -- my opinion is there is a low degree, if any, of asymptomatic spread."
[That lying 'fact-checker' is an idiot. "No evidence" is stated as a claim made by the doctor, which they declare to be FALSE, but you can read with your own eyes what he actually said.]
Dr. McCullough added: "Sick person gives it to sick person. The Chinese have published a study in the British Medical Journal, 11 million people, they're trying to find asymptomatic spread. You can't find it," he said.
AFP examined other 'misleading' claims about this Chinese research in an article in January. The study, published in the scientific journal Nature, was conducted in the latter half of May 2020 after Wuhan relaxed a strict lockdown that had been in place for months.
Fujian Song, one of the report's authors, said in an email on January 6, 2021 that, "It is misleading/incorrect/wrong to conclude that 'all asymptomatic' individuals infected with Covid-19 are not infectious, based on the results of the paper."
[Dr. McCullough never mentioned "all asymptomatic individuals", so why are they erecting such a false claim as a strawman just so that they can triumphantly knock it down?
Are they stupid or do they not know what the word "spread" implies?
In the context of studying a city, it does not refer to one single case but to a recognizable pattern of infection being passed from asymptomatic persons to uninfected individuals.
Individual cases, and especially isolated cases, are irrelevant to a demographic study of a broad population. So why did they just gloss over that fact and distort what he stated which was about the non-detection of a pattern that proves that the asyptomatic can infect others? There was NO SUCH PATTERN DETECTED. Which is what he stated.]
The BMJ published a report on the research on December 1, 2020.[uh…2020? impossible. Must be 2021] Citing the study's authors, it said that "the findings cannot be extrapolated to countries where outbreaks have not been brought under control successfully."
[Ha! What frauds! How dare they mention "findings", as in 'conclusions', when they avoided stating what they were??? What were the "findings" of the 'report' that we are supposed to clairvoyantly know? Such incompetence.
The statement of Fujian Song regarding "all asymptomatic individuals" is supposed to translate to a finding that all or most asymptomatic individuals CAN and WILL transmit the virus.
Is that the "results" of the research? No, it is not, yet that is the idea that they want your subconscious to swallow, thereby justifying the infliction of a mask mandate and vaccination campaigns without end.]
University of Lyon's Lina confirmed that it is incorrect to claim that asymptomatic people can't spread the virus.
[That distortion is wicked. So it is incorrect to claim something that no one has claimed, yet they are doing their damn best to convince the superficial reader that Dr. McCullough actually did claim that, because if you believe that, then their 'debunking' of that claim destroys the doctor's credibility based on the 'FALSE' statement that he never made. See how Luciferian these people are?]
He explained that asymptomatic people often have lower amounts of the virus so they may be less contagious, but "as this virus is very transmissible, in particular the British variant, there can be transmission from asymptomatic carriers."
[Woop-di-do! "can be" means conceivably, possibly, theoretically. It does not mean 'commonly' or 'normally' or 'invariably', much less 'definitely'. So what is to be our take-away from such a non-quantifiable situation? Should we all wear masks everywhere all of the time forever along with submitting to the injection of an unapproved substance followed by an unknown number of booster shots?
They don't want you to ask that, -just comply for today and tomorrow, and maybe someday down the road they will take their boot off of your neck.
In conclusion, notice the absence of any mention of what the consequences are if someone contracts the Delta variant. If the common cold or the flu is transmitted by asymptomatic individuals, what is the difference in the effect to 'the individual' between those illnesses and covid? Well, the question sounds perfectly logical but it is in reality stupid. Why? Because there is no such thing as a 'universal individual'. The very concept is oxymoronic.
If an extremely high percent of infected persons will only suffer a 'mild' and 'short' illness then that should prompt zero interest from the governments of nations and states. Such a subject is way below their pay grade, yet they are usurping authority all over the place, beginning with robbing individuals and businesses of their natural right to freedom of person and freedom of commerce. That is how a full-blown tyranny begins, but it's not how it ends.
WordPress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment