Dr. Peter McCullough & Dr. Aseem Malhotra Discuss The Extraordinary Harm Caused By COVID-19 Vaccines
EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Peter McCullough And Dr. Aseem Malhotra: How The Covid-19 Vaccines Impact The Heart
By Jan Jekielek
American Thought Leaders / The Epoch Times
I sit down with two leading cardiologists from two sides of the Atlantic, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Aseem Malhotra, to understand how the COVID-19 vaccines impact the body, especially the heart.
“There has been a suggestion — and I think this is probably subterfuge from the PR industry of pharma — that mild COVID may be causing all the sudden cardiac deaths. And the evidence is just not there for that at all,” says Malhotra. Once an outspoken advocate of the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, Malhotra changed his mind after the sudden death of his father compelled him to take a closer look at the data.
“Roughly 15 percent of people who have taken the vaccines are damaged by them,” says McCullough, one of the most published cardiologists in America and the Chief Scientific Officer of The Wellness Company.
McCullough says the risk of adverse effects from the mRNA vaccines is particularly high for those who were previously infected with COVID-19. “There are patients who are triple vaccinated, and then they get COVID. So they have a fourth exposure now of the spike protein. There is a cumulative risk here,” he says.
In this episode, the two doctors break down the data on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, bias in the scientific literature, and what people should do if they are concerned about their health.
Become an Epoch Times subscriber:
Below is a rush transcript of this American Thought Leaders episode from Dec 17, 2022. This transcript may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Jan Jekielek: Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Dr. Peter McCullough, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. Peter McCullough: Thank you.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra: Great to be here again.
Mr. Jekielek: Of course the topic of our episode today is going to be COVID-19 and the heart. Sitting in front of two esteemed cardiologists from different backgrounds, from different countries, different medical systems, and we’re going to find out what you think. So Dr. McCullough, let’s start with just the basics. COVID-19 and the heart. And you can expand as far as you would like to start us off.
Dr. McCullough: Looking back, there’s been a published history of the coronaviruses, specifically the betacoronaviruses, and the heart. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill published in 1992 that he could create animal models with coronaviruses that would damage the heart and cause cardiomyopathy and heart failure. That was in 1992. So it was well known that there were models, given enough of the virus in the right routes of administration, the right experimental conditions, to cause this. The part of the virus that causes the heart damage is called the spike protein. So this was well known, 1992, well known ahead of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. And when the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak occurred in the United States in 2000, within a few months, multiple entities were aware of this possibility. So the U.S. military had a screening program for myocarditis with COVID, the respiratory illness, so did the Big Ten NCAA athletic league. And so people were on alert to look for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2, the respiratory infection.
Mr. Jekielek: And Dr. Malhotra, your thoughts.
Dr. Malhotra: I think one of the things that became quite apparent early on in the pandemic is that the people who had risk factors for heart disease, who also even had underlying heart disease, were actually at higher risk for adverse outcomes from COVID-19. So the issue with the heart and COVID isn’t just about the vaccine, clearly, which we’ve discussed in detail before. It’s about the fact that one was also in a worse off position potentially from having a bad outcome from COVID if you had underlying heart disease.
Mr. Jekielek: And that would extend to potentially bad outcomes from the vaccine. Do we know that?
Dr. Malhotra: Could be. Certainly the four bits of data that the WHO put out in terms of potential adverse effects from the vaccine were based upon COVID itself, animal studies on the vaccine, the technology that was being used in previous harms from vaccines. But the fact that COVID itself was part of that as a problematic issue with the vaccine suggests that that was just building on what we already knew with heart disease and COVID.
Mr. Jekielek: The typical thing that we hear about is myocarditis, and we know that because that’s probably the most developed of the cardiac issues when it comes to vaccination with these genetic vaccines. Why don’t you just give me an overview?
Dr. Malhotra: So first and foremost, there’s been a lot of debate about whether COVID increased myocarditis itself, and the totality of the evidence, I’m sure Peter will agree with me, doesn’t suggest that compared to any other viruses, it’s particularly more prevalent. When it comes to the vacc- Well, we’ll talk about the vaccine in a second. Myocarditis in general, viral myocarditis, pre-vaccine, something we learn in medicine is a rule of third. So a third of people are going to get worse and die when they get myocarditis, and it’s thought to be essentially an autoimmune type phenomenon. So it can happen to anybody. In fact, my elder brother died from viral myocarditis. So either a third will die and get very sick, a third will have impairment of the heart muscle pump function and will live with that for a long time but not die, and a third will be sick momentarily and then they will get back to normal. And that’s what we know about viral myocarditis.
With the COVID-19 myocarditis, a slightly different kettle of fish. In some ways, there’s not that obvious or apparent death rates from myocarditis that we see with viral myocarditis, but of the people admitted to hospital, MRI scans show that about 80% of them are left with some kind of myocardial scar, which means that is potentially a problem moving forward as a substrate for arrhythmias or even deterioration of heart muscle pump function over time.
Mr. Jekielek: And now we’re just talking about the virus itself, right?
Dr. Malhotra: No, this is, sorry, with the vaccine.
Mr. Jekielek: Oh, this is with the vaccine. Okay, great.
Dr. McCullough: With the virus, if we just stay on the virus, there was a big paper that was published out of the Veterans Administration. They used ICD codes, but it was a huge study. First author I believe is Xie, X-I-E. Showed that virtually every cardiovascular event was elevated after a COVID infection, that was serious enough to be in the hospital. So the risks were giant for those who were in the hospital with COVID. Outpatient COVID, the risks were much less, but it included with COVID and afterwards a traditional myocardial infarction, the decompensation of heart failure, ventricular arrhythmias, atrial arrhythmias, and myocarditis. Now, myocarditis on the inpatient studies is a problem, because it’s not adjudicated. And a blood test is commonly done in almost all hospitalized patients called troponin. Troponin is the most abundant protein in the human heart, and it’s a reliable indicator of heart damage. But a troponin being elevated in COVID-19 respiratory illness doesn’t establish a diagnosis of myocarditis, because it’s elevated in bacterial sepsis and other ICU conditions.
So the literature, and there’s some papers written on this, that say COVID-19 itself causes more myocarditis than the vaccine. Those papers are not valid, because they’re not adjudicated cases of hospitalized patients developing myocarditis. But what’s of interest in community outpatients, the Big Ten had a screening program, a paper by Daniels and colleagues published in JAMA looked for myocarditis in thousands of athletes, 30% of them got COVID. They found a handful of cases that would’ve met a definition by multiple testing, and there were no hospitalizations and deaths. And then a paper by Joy and colleagues did very prospective cohorts, detailed screening of patients who developed COVID, no evidence of heart injury.
So I agree with Dr. Malhotra, with the respiratory illness as it all settles out, there is a risk for traditional cardiovascular events because of this big inflammatory insult that the body gets with COVID respiratory illness. But there is a small negligible risk of myocarditis with COVID, the respiratory infection, probably because the body doesn’t get this massive exposure to the spike protein as it does with the vaccines.
Mr. Jekielek: But unless the disease is allowed to progress, and once someone’s in the hospital, now we’re seeing big issues. Is that right?
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah, absolutely. I think that, as Peter said, the cardiovascular event rates, certainly in the people with severe COVID… And we’re talking now, going back in time a little bit to the ancestral strain really, because that’s what we saw at the very beginning, the Wuhan strain, does seem to, through an inflammatory mechanism, increase cardiovascular events. However, this is something we have known about in cardiology anyway, with all sorts of infections. If you’ve got predisposition as cardiovascular disease, you have an infection or pneumonia, it’s going to exacerbate all these cardiovascular problems. It’s going to increase the likelihood of plaque rupture and heart attacks, that kind of thing. So in that sense, it’s not that new. And I think the point that has been made more apparent recently is that there has been a suggestion, and I think this is probably subterfuge from the PR industry of pharma, that mild COVID may be causing all these sudden cardiac deaths. And the evidence is just not there for that at all, actually. So I think people shouldn’t be distracted by this false narrative that mild COVID may be causing a massive surge in cardiac arrests.
Dr. McCullough: There’s a paper by Singer and colleagues that’s notable, because Singer again used this unadjudicated troponin elevation in the hospital by ICD codes, and proclaimed that COVID-19, the respiratory illness, has many-fold higher risk of myocarditis than taking a vaccine. So therefore you should take a vaccine and risk myocarditis in order to avoid myocarditis later on with the respiratory illness. And that type of logic is… It should be flawed to anybody listening to this. It’s built on a house of cards. We never administer a product to cause a problem, to later on prevent a problem. It just doesn’t work that way.
And with the vaccines, there’s quite a history of myocarditis with vaccines. Smallpox, monkeypox vaccine clearly causes myocarditis, well published cases of myocarditis. Viral infections can cause it, parvovirus and others. And a paper by [inaudible 00:10:04] and colleagues from Finland, published in one of the best cardiology journals before COVID, established a rate. It’s very important. They studied everybody in the entire country, and they had very solid case identification. Four cases per million is the background rate of myocarditis before COVID. And the very first number of the CDC came out with… And the CDC was dividing safety events by the total number of people that took the vaccine, assuming other people didn’t get it. That is a flawed statistical approach. But even doing that, the first CDC estimate was 62 cases per million, and then it rapidly escalated.
Tracy Høeg at UC Davis, different data analysis, 250 cases per million. Sharff at Kaiser Permanente found 527 cases per million. And now the two prospective cohort studies, [inaudible 00:10:51] and colleagues and [inaudible 00:10:53] and colleagues, two separate papers, when they finally do all the measurements before and then after vaccination, [inaudible 00:10:59] was on the second shot of Pfizer in children age 13 to 18, [inaudible 00:11:04] was in healthcare workers on the third shot of messenger RNA vaccines, they find together [inaudible 00:11:10] estimate now 25,000 cases per million.
Mr. Jekielek: So this has basically accelerated as the vaccine rollout or the number of boosters, or how do you understand this?
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. Myocarditis itself, absolutely. I think all cardiovascular conditions have got worse because of the vaccine, and anything and everything that can go wrong with the heart has gone wrong with the heart as a result of these mRNA vaccines. There’s no doubt about it. And that’s why me and Peter both separately had essentially said… Because if doctors are not aware of a possible diagnosis, they’ll never diagnose it. So many doctors still unfortunately, including cardiologists, are not even conceiving of the possibility that the mRNA vaccine can cause these problems. But the list is there, it’s endorsed by the WHO, whether it’s cardiac arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, heart attacks, myocarditis, heart failure. And I’ve managed all of these people in the community who have been vaccine injured, where their doctors have missed it, but I picked it up.
Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. Let’s pause for a moment. I’m remembering this video that I watched that someone had put together online. You both came up with a particular phrase, which was “Until proven otherwise.” Some of the viewers might be familiar with this. I want to figure out, did you independently… What does it mean, number one? And two, did you both independently come up with it? And third, I’m going to ask you how you know each other and when you started talking to each other, because you’ve come to some similar conclusions.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. I think in terms of the until proven otherwise, I think we came up with it independently. Because I got to think that… It was trying to capture people’s attention for cardiologists, doctors, to understand that these so-called unexplained events that were happening where it doesn’t fit, if that’s the case with a cardiac issue, then you have to include as part of your differential diagnosis the side effect of the vaccine in there. So it’s trying to just shift the discussion rather than, as a default, until you’ve got another clear explanation why someone suffered a sudden cardiac death or had a heart attack or a arrhythm problem, that you have to consider it being the vaccine until you’ve proven that there’s another more likely cause. So that was really to capture… And I’m sure Peter probably did the same thing. And then in terms of… I can’t remember, Peter, when we started actually speaking to each other or [inaudible 00:13:38].
Dr. McCullough: It’s been a while. He uses texting a lot. He’s younger, so he’s in the text generation. I have really a substantial experience on data safety and monitoring boards for the NIH, for big pharma. I’ve done this for decades. When people are in a study, or it’s in a post-marketing period in a brand new drug, when someone dies within a few days, or certainly within 30 days of any new drug or injection, it is that drug until proven otherwise. If this was in a regulatory dossier, even something that’s seemingly disconnected… Believe it or not, in clinical trials, if someone’s taking a drug and they have a car accident, it’s attributed to the drug, because the drug may have made them dizzy or foggy or what have you. So we always, to be conservative, we actually put it on the new drug or the new injection or the new vaccine. That’s just good regulatory science. So when the deaths started to come in after the vaccine, unless we had something very obvious, a drug overdose of something else, a suicide attempt, or just something obvious… [inaudible 00:14:51]
Mr. Jekielek: A very clear cause.
Dr. McCullough: Yeah. Or there was an autopsy that said they died of a perforated appendix or something. It is the vaccine until proven otherwise. Then once we learned that the vaccine causes myocarditis, that was in June of 2021, the FDA says it causes myocarditis, the WHO anticipated this, the NIH anticipated this, and then the myocarditis cases started coming in, with the publication of fatal cases. So there’s fatal cases, they undergo an autopsy, and the pathologists agree they died of fatal myocarditis. Now it’s in the peer reviewed literature, 2021 New England Journal of Medicine, by Verma and colleagues from Washington University in St. Louis. We had Choi in Korea, [inaudible 00:15:34] from Connecticut and Michigan and Minnesota, that trio published on two boys who died of Pfizer vaccine. And it’s clear now in Circulation, our best cardiology research journal, [inaudible 00:15:46] colleagues from the UK, 100 fatal cases where the UK doctors put as a number one diagnosis on the death certificate, fatal vaccine induced myocarditis.
We have it now. The next person who dies, the next person who dies out there, and there’s no explanation, it is the vaccine until the family comes out and tells us they didn’t take the vaccine. And every family that remains silent, the assumption is they took the vaccine, and now the family is in a spiral of regret, remorse, feeling guilty about what happened. That’s probably what’s going on [inaudible 00:16:21] families can clear this up. Anybody listening to this tape, if the families come out and say they did not take the vaccine, then we can take the spotlight off the vaccine.
Mr. Jekielek: It seems to make perfect sense as you’re describing this right now, but I feel like I’ve been programmed to believe otherwise.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. I think the other thing to add in, which we haven’t discussed yet as well, is I think an element of people almost accepting to some degree that these side effects, which they wrongly believe are rare, is acceptable, is because they also have a false perception of benefit of the vaccine. So one of the discussions I’ve had with even doctors who are, in normal circumstances, good critical thinkers… Hold on a minute, Aseem. Haven’t we ended the pandemic because of the vaccine? How about all these lives that are saved? How come COVID is not… It’s not killing people anymore. No. COVID mutated independent of the vaccine. It’s become milder. That’s what happens to these viruses. You can take the vaccine… Somebody asked me the question the other day. If we didn’t have the vaccine at all, would we be in a better or worse position than we are now? Honest answer is we don’t know, but I think we’d be better off if we didn’t even have the vaccine at all. We would have had probably less harm to the population.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay. Big statement. And why? What is the data that supports this?
Dr. Malhotra: You go back to the very basics of the original randomized control trial. The vaccine showed you were more liked to have a serious… And this is in a healthier subgroup population, which were chosen by Pfizer and Moderna. You were more liked to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine than to be hospitalized with COVID. And that is during the original ancestral Wuhan strain. Think about that. You’ve got the same effect of harm from the vaccine, and even in the worst possible wave, it was still more harmful. The virus has mutated to become less harmful, and you’ve still got the same level of harm with the vaccine. It’s a no-brainer. I think you can make a very strong case that societies would have been much better off without this mRNA technology.
AstraZeneca, that was in effect suspended in the UK, even though it wasn’t made public, they slowly phased it out. But when you look at the Yellow Card reporting, and this is in a country of a population of 60 million, we had 1 million Yellow Card reports from AstraZeneca, which is just extraordinary. And it was publicized in news reports of a rare clotting effect or a rare issue. We know now it wasn’t rare at all. So I think these vaccines have had a hugely negative impact on society, on health, and of course everything that’s gone with it has eroded trust as well in medicine.
Mr. Jekielek: And just to add to what you were saying, that these vaccines were designed for this original variant, so basically they would’ve been most efficacious, if they were efficacious, on those early variants than the ones today.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. Absolutely. And I think something else which I…. We talk about the psychopathic determinants of health. I think what was most criminal is telling people who had natural immunity to take the vaccine, because some evidence suggests you were three times more likely to suffer a serious adverse event if you had COVID and then you took the vaccine, certainly within the first few months after it. It’s beyond criminal. Let’s just call it out for what it is.
Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about this. Natural immunity is something that, since time immemorial, has been known to be something that is effective. Basically, if you’ve had the disease, chances are that you’re going to be in a much better situation with respect to disease. In many cases, you just won’t get it anymore. You’re immune. So what is the deal with natural immunity today?
Dr. McCullough: There are two… The biggest question I get from my patients is, “Doctor, if I get COVID, how can I avoid being hospitalized and dying?” Those are the two bad outcomes. I think anybody who gets the illness [inaudible 00:20:23] if I can get through it at home, I’m good. So the only factors that have been consistently related to reductions in hospitalization and death by risk is early treatment. Every study looking at early treatment, doesn’t matter what drugs were tested, drugs in combination, they always take an edge off the illness and reduce the proclivity to be hospitalized. An analysis by [inaudible 00:20:46] and colleagues, mathematical analysis, demonstrating we actually knew that with a P value of less than 0.01, that forms of early treatment were stopping hospitalizations by December of 2020. Very important. Multiple studies across the world. And then natural immunity.
And so early on, the FDA and the vaccine manufacturers, when they were actually working on the registrational trials, they strictly excluded anybody who had previously had COVID, even suspected patients with COVID, they were excluded. They couldn’t even receive a vaccine. Also pregnant women and women of childbearing potential. So when we have exclusion criteria in clinical trials, the exclusions must be justified. And the rationale to justify the exclusion was, they did not have an opportunity for benefit, and they had an opportunity for harm. And so a golden rule in medicine is, once people are excluded from the original randomized trials, we never immediately start applying this in practice. And in the first week of the U.S. vaccine program, we saw people who already had recovered COVID, were told they should take it, and our CDC, NIH, and FDA and hospital systems and others all agreed. And we saw pregnant women and women of childbearing potential.
Those breaches, those are breaches of regulatory science, breaches of medical ethics, they are completely off the rails. That was in December 10th of 2020. At that moment, we knew things were off the rails. We had never done that before. We had never done that before. Papers by [inaudible 00:22:23] clearly showed, if one had natural immunity, there was an explosion of risk afterwards, including going in the hospital. And I still think today, one of the reasons why the adverse event profile is so bad on the vaccines, even way worse than the original trials, I think is because people with previous COVID have actually been taking these.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. So let’s look at that data. People that have had COVID and then took the vaccines, versus people who hadn’t had COVID and took the vaccines. You mentioned it was a three times… [inaudible 00:22:56]
Dr. Malhotra: Almost threefold increase in systemic side effects. Yeah. If you have the vaccine after having natural immunity. Absolutely.
Dr. McCullough: Everything was worse. There’s a paper from the UK [inaudible 00:23:04] I specifically remember that paper. Everything was worse. The reactogenicity, the pain in the arm, lymph node swelling, fever, events that landed people in the hospital was worse. And we have data from the V-safe data now, which is extraordinary. CDC did not want to release that to the public. V-safe is a cell phone app that people are told, if you have side effects, fill it out on the cell phone app, in terms of something happened to you. 10 million Americans did it. The CDC wanted to withhold it. Under court order they were forced to release it to the NGO ICAN, and the results are bombshell. 25% of people who take the vaccine are incapacitated the next day. They can’t go to work or school the day after. 7% to 8% are hospitalized or go to the ER. This is the most toxic vaccine by the CDC data that we’ve ever seen in clinical medicine. And my hunch is, a large number of those individuals had previously had COVID.
And I’ve mentioned this on national TV, and I’ve reported events through the VAERS system, a separate system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. In the VAERS system, there’s no checkbox to indicate if they’ve previously had COVID. It is a massive oversight, when the data were clearly showing us recovered people were excluded from clinical trials, they were going to have side effects with the vaccine, you’d think the CDC would at least want to capture that information so they could mitigate risk with new recommendations.
Mr. Jekielek: How does this compare with the UK data?
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah, it’s similar. It’s similar. I think it’s trying to… For me, there is always going back to trying to make sense of this kind of behavior when the evidence is so clear. There was no precautionary principle applied. And it still comes back that these regulatory bodies failed in their duty to protect the public from the excesses of and manipulations of industry who were there just wanting to mass vaccinate as many people as possible, irrespective of the consequences and irrespective of the harm. And people need to understand that. The regulators in our country, the MHRA, the FDA in the U.S., people [inaudible 00:25:08] realize that, as long as they’re captured by industry funding, they are not going to be independent, they’re not rigorous, and they cannot be trusted. It’s very simple. Let’s just call it out for what it is. They have acted as essentially sock puppets or slaves to the psychopath. This is the only explanation, Jan, I have for this behavior. It’s psychopathic.
Mr. Jekielek: So we’ve talked about this, your understanding of the psychopath or psychopathic entities in the past. Briefly for the benefit of our audience who don’t know about that conversation, tell me what you mean.
Dr. Malhotra: Sure. Yeah. So evidence-based, Robert Hare, forensic psychologist, preeminent expert in the original international definition DSM criteria for psychopath. He describes consistently that pharmaceutical companies, many big corporations, that the way they carry out their business is psychopathic. So for example, callous, unconcerned for the safety of others, conning, deceiving others for profit. Several criteria they fulfill, which you would normally give a definition as a psychopath in psychiatric definitions, terms you can apply to these big corporations. So for me to try and explain this kind of behavior, many of the people that have been propagating misinformation on the COVID vaccines, who have been callous in terms of not regarding and understanding the safety concerns, are really slaves to the entity that’s driving it, and the entity is psychopathic. So I would say, for example, the FDA that are captured by industry as well, effectively by promoting and not stopping this vaccine being rolled out when they knew there was significant harm are behaving like slaves or puppets to the psychopath.
Mr. Jekielek: Something that… It’s still hard to fathom. Is it just simply this mania with making sure that every single person gets vaccinated, and it’s just too complicated to test for natural immunity? Is that what you think?
Dr. Malhotra: No, I don’t think so. No, I don’t think there’s any… I can’t see any rational reason for them doing it. I know from direct conversations with people linked to the FDA when they’ve… So one of the things that’s been used is a surrogate marker of antibodies. But the FDA themselves in May 2021 on their website actually put out a statement saying the public and doctors need to understand that current SARS 2 COVID antibody tests do not give any indication of protection or immunity to COVID-19, especially after receiving vaccination. They knew that it was essentially a useless marker. And yet that’s all they’ve used to try and justify the perpetuation of vaccines or use studies where they’re showing slightly high antibody titers with people who had natural immunity and then had the vaccine. It is the worst possible science.
Dr. McCullough: The term is called surrogate. Surrogates in our field, cardiology, have actually… That’s a bad word. Surrogate means we trust something that’s not a real clinical outcome, in hope that reducing this is actually going to improve something meaningful, like reducing hospitalization and death. And when the FDA put out that warning, in fact I think it was June of 2020 when they said, we should not measure antibodies. Don’t do it to try to assess for immunity. Don’t try to do this. And the antibody manufacturers were correct. If you actually read their package labels, it says the purpose of measuring this test is to ascertain prior infection. That’s the whole reason to do it. So the knowledge of prior infection is a very useful piece of information.
And we know now, there’s a recent paper, one of the ones I quote the most, by Chin and colleagues, New England Journal of Medicine, end of October 2022, 59,000 prisoners, 17,000 staff, all in a closed setting. They know everybody who’s getting COVID, they know everybody who’s being hospitalized and died. If someone’s had any prior version of COVID, and they now get the Omicron strain, zero risk of hospitalization and death. Zero. Doesn’t matter if you took a vaccine or not. The vaccine had no impact. And even those where it was not clear if they had prior COVID, very, very low risks. Very low risks across the board, and no difference with whether or not someone took a vaccine. That’s a massive sample size, but it gives reassurance. When people know they’ve had prior COVID, we can operate on that.
As a doctor, I get called all the time. “Dr. McCullough, I have COVID.” My first question is, “Is this your first episode or a second or more episode?” “It’s my second episode.” Okay. I know that that patient has a negligible risk of hospitalization and death. I behave differently. When it’s the first episode, it could be more severe. But as Dr. Malhotra said, we’re now in the Omicron era of which we have very, very few serious cases. The current estimate right now is in the United States, and we’ve heard Rochelle Walensky say this, that there are 300 Americans “dying per day who are COVID positive.” From our CDC data, we know that 90% of that is something else is contributing, driving to death, like a hip fracture, pneumococcal pneumonia, and they’re just testing positive probably from a prior COVID infection months earlier, and 10% really have adjudicated COVID.
So now we’re down to 30 deaths per day. 30 deaths per day. Let me give you an idea. In the United States, there’s 2,000 cardiac deaths per day of heart attacks and heart failure and fatal arrhythmias. So COVID-19, in the Omicron era, for the last year, has been a negligible public health threat. There is absolutely no criteria for President Biden to declare this a continued health emergency.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. And that’s actually an interesting… Is that how you assess the death data now?
Dr. Malhotra: Yes. Absolutely. It’s very mild now. It’s very, very mild. So it’s not an issue. It’s not a public health issue. Shouldn’t be. The pandemic is over. So we’re dealing with a cold. We’re dealing with a cold. In fact, I got COVID early on this year, I’ll be honest with you. Fine, I’m in my forties. I’ve had worse colds. And I effectively by that stage was unvaccinated, because it was more than a year since I’d had two doses. People need to be told the truth. We need to stop scaring people.
Mr. Jekielek: It’s interesting that some of the criticisms that I’ve heard about both of your respective work actually is that you focus on… You cherry pick your studies. You basically pick the studies that will give you the outcomes that you want. And I’d like each of you to respond to that criticism, because it’s a common one.
Dr. McCullough: I have 60 peer reviewed publications on COVID-19. That’s a pretty solid performance over the last three years. People have said, “Dr. McCullough, you’re not an infectious disease specialist.” I said, “I am now. I’ve done three years of dedicated study on this. I’ve studied my patients, I’ve received grants, I’ve investigational drug applications. I’ve done everything I could to apply my scholarship to this topic, and I’m all in on it.” We’re at 300,000 papers on COVID-19. We’re at 300,000. There is a clear cut bias in the medical literature coming from the major publishers, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis and others, all the way down to the editorial offices, to promote mass vaccination. We’ve seen a clear and present trend. And so for those reasons, we actually have to look in less prominent journals and evaluate the data to see what’s out there. We have to rely on the pre-print literature right now.
And what really matters are the data [inaudible 00:32:52] tables and figures. I’m at the point now where I just ignore what the authors write. A typical paper on myocarditis, for instance, will start out like this. COVID-19 vaccination has saved millions and millions of lives, and it’s the most valuable thing that’s ever come in human medicine. Now we want to describe all these fatal cases of myocarditis. Conclusion. This justifies COVID-19 vaccination. It doesn’t… You’re laughing, because it doesn’t add up right now. We just simply look at the data, and many times we have to look in the supplemental tables.
Mr. Jekielek: I’ve read a number of these papers as you describe them right now, and I wonder if people aren’t subversively putting good data into the system while including those paragraphs at the beginning and the end, because it’s the only way they can get them published in these journals. What do you think?
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah, absolutely. But to be honest, that’s just cowardice as far as I’m concerned. Absolute and total cowardice. Let’s call it out for what it is. The medical profession, people who are doing that, they might as well be complicit in the problem, to be honest, if they’re not being clear with what they want to say.
The second thing I would say, Jan, in terms of the cherry picking… So I’ve been involved in this advocacy space for a long time. I’ve had attacks from the food industry, from pharma on statins and that kind of thing. And I’ll quote actually a tweet from John Cleese, the comedian, in response to the accusations of cherry picking, which I haven’t done. One of the old rules of the KGB is to accuse your enemy of exactly what you are doing.
Mr. Jekielek: There’s something called the ironclad law of woke projection, which is… It reminds me of what you just said.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah.
Dr. McCullough: Jan, in medicine, if we take any major therapeutic, a blood pressure lowering drug, a certain class of cholesterol lowering drugs, there will be papers written that say the risk of this drug far outweighs the benefits. And there’ll be other papers that are written that say the benefits far outweigh the risks. It’s a debate. It’s a battle. And we go through this, we actually go to our meetings, and we revel in these debates. With COVID-19 vaccines, there isn’t a single paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, where the conclusion is, the risk of the vaccines outweigh the benefits. There is an absence of balance in the literature. That tells me as a former editor, and as one of the most published people in the world in the history in my area, that there is a deep seated bias to only promote the vaccines in their peer reviewed literature. Because otherwise we’d have balance. We’d have papers that come in and hear a different viewpoint.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. To come back to the cherry picking issue as well, what I try to do with my paper is just break it down. What are the absolute benefits, and what are the absolute harms? No-one’s really effectively… I’ve not had a single rebuttal. I’ve had a few character assassination attempts in blogs, but there hasn’t been any… And I’ve been involved in publications for a while, and there’s not been anything effective in combating it. So for me, these accusations of cherry picking don’t really stand up to scrutiny. And we’re talking about very good level of data quality to make those conclusions.
I think the other thing that was thrown out around there, you may have heard this as well Peter, there was a paper not so long ago that made news headlines that the vaccine has saved 20 million lives globally. And that was a modeling… It’s the lowest quality level of evidence, extrapolations from a modeling study. It doesn’t… It’s basically bull (beep).
Dr. McCullough: It assumes…
Dr. Malhotra: Let’s just call it for what it [inaudible 00:36:27] bullshit. It’s science fiction, it’s marketing, it’s fraud.
Dr. McCullough: Any paper that assumes the vaccines are beneficial and then multiplies at times large numbers is basically committing fraud. They’re defrauding the readership. We should look at the data at hand. And the letters to the editor, by the way, speak volumes. So he’s published part one and part two in very well-respected journal, and the letters to the editor have not come in with any serious threats to validity. When I published the very first paper on treatment in [inaudible 00:37:00] American Journal of Medicine, and then the second one in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, I watched the letters to the editor come in very carefully. Not a single one provided any threat. In fact, it was a wonderful discussion. I’d say, “I’m really glad you wrote this letter to the editor. Now here’s even more data that we have to treat patients, and here’s another.” And at the end I was inviting them, overcome your fear, and let’s start treating patients. And those letters to the editor just went away.
Dr. Malhotra: And I think another thing that’s really important that we are also missing out on without the acknowledgement… So we’ve got to remember, a lot of people aren’t even walking, we’re running in terms of understanding vaccine injuries are real and they are common. Without even acknowledging that this exists as a major issue, we are losing out on dedicating time, resources, and research towards helping people who are genuinely vaccine injured. We are in complete dereliction of our duty as doctors by not acknowledging this is a problem. And the longer we go on, the worse the problem’s going to get.
Mr. Jekielek: And just to be clear, this data that we saw, one of you mentioned it earlier to me, it was just like seven or eight out of 100 people who have taken the vaccine had a serious outcome. That’s the number, right?
Dr. McCullough: That’s V-Safe data.
Mr. Jekielek: That is astounding. That is a whole different ballgame.
Dr. McCullough: We have currently in the United States, 90% of Americans are not taking any more vaccines. They’re not taking any boosters. That’s the CDC COVID tracker data. There’s only a 10% take rate now. Remember, the vaccines run out of any theoretical effectiveness after a few months. One has to keep taking boosters. In terms of people keep taking boosters, we’re down to about 10% of Americans. So how do 90% of Americans, how did they know to stop taking vaccines? I don’t think it’s by watching CNN. This is where it’s coming from. It’s coming from the fact that 7% to 8% of people end up in the ER or in urgent care and the family members talk to each other.
There’s a Zogby survey, a representative survey, that asked people about the vaccines. Two thirds of Americans in the Zogby survey said they took a vaccine. And they asked them, “What happened?” 15% of people have some new medical problem that they’re now seeking care after taking the vaccine. Those 15% talk to other people. There’s a Michigan State survey. 22% of Americans know somebody who’s either died or been seriously injured after a COVID-19 vaccination. That 22% talks to other people. So it’s rare now that you’d ever encounter anybody who says that they haven’t heard something.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. And it’s a really interesting point, because prior to this, historically when it comes to side effects of drugs, people are more likely to trust the experiences of their friends and family to influence whether or not they take a drug than their doctor, when it comes to side effects. And I think we’re seeing this now with the vaccine.
Mr. Jekielek: This has always been the case, you’re saying.
Dr. Malhotra: This is even pre the COVID vaccines. So the truth is getting out. It’s obviously there under the surface, there’s clearly a disconnect now between what the government authorities are telling people to do and what’s really happening. In the UK, every week I’m getting a message for the last several months from my general practice, my surgery where I’m a patient, to come and have the booster. Every week I’m getting a text message, come and have your booster. I’m just ignoring it. And I’m a low risk guy in his early forties. People are not turning up, people are not going. That’s a really, really bad situ- In some ways I’m glad, because people are being saved, but it’s also not good where we are having a great disconnect now between what authorities are telling people to do, people who should be trusted in those roles and those guardianship roles, and the public ignoring that advice. What’s going on with the trust?
Mr. Jekielek: It’s a complete breakdown of trust in public health. And this type of trust is very hard to earn back, especially if the breakdown of trust is warranted, as you’ve been telling me today.
Dr. McCullough: Can you imagine if things were different? Pfizer is approved December 10th 2020. Moderna is December 18th. J&J comes out in February. But you can imagine early on… Pfizer knew about 1,223 deaths worldwide when their product was released. Can you imagine if Pfizer, after about 5, 10, 15, no more than 50 deaths said, “Wait a minute, we got to stop. We got to stop.” They probably knew about that even before Moderna came out, and said, “We have to analyze these deaths. We’re just going to pause the program, and let’s analyze how people are dying after the vaccine.” There could have been a deep investigation and say, “Geez, people who has polyethylene glycol allergies, there’s anaphylactic deaths that are occurring right in front of us. There’s reactogenic deaths or people dying with a fever and shortness of breath in nursing homes. There are people dying within a few days of heart inflammation, myocarditis. There are fatal blood clots.” There could have been risk mitigation.
And high quality science could have delivered an answer that, you know what? For these groups here, this is unsafe, but we’re going to continue with these other groups. There could have been a… And of course this idea of only applying the vaccine in the highest risk individuals. So people have asked me, “Dr. McCullough, were you against the vaccines before they came out?” I said, “I published a cautionary paper regarding it in The Hill.” But what I said is, maybe 2.7 million Americans at the most should consider a vaccine initially. And that would’ve been nursing home residents, nursing home workers, very, very frail people. The patients in my practice who I know couldn’t survive two hours of COVID, and I have had patients in my practice die of COVID, those are the ones who should have potentially considered the risk of a vaccine.
But we saw it being widely applied to young people, and before you knew it, the newsreels were off of the senior citizens and they were onto children. And there’s been this incredible training of the public eye on children, even down to infants six months of age. It seems so out of proportion to risk. The risk has always been in the ultra frail and elderly.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. So again, coming back to it, the only explanation, or the best explanation so far for this type of behavior, is an entity, an organization, that is not behaving in a moral or scientific way. They’re behaving in a psychopathic way. And that’s for me the most likely explanation behind this behavior, until proven otherwise.
Dr. McCullough: The thing that really worries me is, it’s not just pharmaceutical marketing. Can’t be Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, Novavax. It can’t. The Department of Health and Human Services and the White House poured billions of dollars into an effort starting in April of 2021. April, four months into the campaign. And it was called the COVID-19 Community Corps. Billions of dollars. It went to churches, community groups, medical societies like the American College of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, to the NFL, to the media companies, all the Hollywood production, hundreds and hundreds of entities received cumulatively billions of dollars. Why did HHS send money to the American College of Pediatrics before it ever came up for pediatric review? Think about that. Our government was basically monetarily preparing the American College of Pediatrics to be in line with pediatric vaccination before the studies were even done.
Mr. Jekielek: It speaks to what you just said. And in the UK is it a similar reality? I don’t know what the spending looked like, but it sounds from what I’ve read in that ballpark.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. I think not the same kind of scale of the U.S., but the same sort of thing. Absolutely.
Mr. Jekielek: Because there was this whole government effort to nudge the population into… Using basically fear to elicit the behavior of, I guess, taking vaccines. Is that what happened?
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah, it was. I think we were a little bit luckier in the sense that we didn’t push or mandate it for everybody, at all. In fact the closest we came, which was unprecedented in the UK, was this initial announcement mandating it for NHS staff, even though it went against traditional British Medical Association policy, but we overturned that. So that’s a good thing. But it shouldn’t have been… This level of coercion should never have happened.
Mr. Jekielek: But what about the vaccination rates? How do they compare, U.S. to the UK?
Dr. Malhotra: Still pretty high. Still very high.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah. So it’s interesting to see… [inaudible 00:45:54]
Dr. Malhotra: They’ve gone down though massively, in the last six months to nine months. In fact, we’re actually seeing, which is more concerning, that other safe, traditional vaccines like MMR, the uptake is down there. So there is clearly a good evidence of decreasing trust, and that’s not good at all. It’s not good at all.
Mr. Jekielek: So we started talking about the heart of course, and COVID-19, the heart, and of course vaccination related to the heart. We talked about myocarditis, a bit about heart disease, but what are the other effects that exist?
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. Electrical disturbances of the heart are quite common. So I’ve been managing people who, for no clear reason, are having conditions like atrial fibrillation, irregular heartbeat, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, which could potentially be fatal if it becomes sustained ventricular tachycardia. A number of patients with cardiomyopathy, so in other words, conditions affecting the heart muscle’s ability to pump blood around the body. So people with… There was a lady in her fifties, I wrote about her, who was very fit and well, and developed progressive breathlessness after a few months of having the vaccine. Wasn’t unwell enough to go to hospital [inaudible 00:47:04] didn’t feel right, and a heart scan showed that her heart muscle was severely impaired in terms of its ability to pump. Awful. And again, the most likely… She didn’t have COVID. The most likely explanation is a vaccine.
So anything and everything that go wrong with the heart is being caused unfortunately by the mRNA vaccines. I think many people are not aware. There are people coming to me where, as a doctor, you make a diagnosis as the likely cause, they have risk factors for atrial fibrillation, whatever, and they haven’t got any of that, but the clear common denominator is they’ve had the Pfizer vaccine. So it’s a real problem. It’s massive. It’s huge.
Mr. Jekielek: And I want to… [inaudible 00:47:37]
Dr. Malhotra: And most people don’t know about it. That’s the worst part. I think most people are not getting diagnosed. They don’t realize that the vaccine is causing them a problem.
Mr. Jekielek: I just want to reiterate also that we discussed earlier how, because this is a as of yet untested product, you have to assume that it’s involved. That’s the proper procedure.
Dr. Malhotra: Absolutely.
Dr. McCullough: In a real hierarchy of safety, cardiovascular safety is typically number one on the list of being very cautious. The paper by [inaudible 00:48:08] and colleagues from Bangkok, Thailand, the first prospective cohort study, children ages 13 to 18, second shot of Pfizer, 29% had cardiovascular symptoms. 29% of the kids, when they carefully assessed, had cardiovascular symptoms. 2.3% had bona fide myocarditis. Two children hospitalized. That’s out of 333 children. So this gives you an idea. Usually 333 children, that’s not going to be enough to even find a signal. In fact, the signal was quite loud.
I think there’s some signature syndromes with the COVID-19 vaccines. One of them is what’s called POTS, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. People feel their heart rate being elevated inappropriately at times, blood pressure being labile. There was a paper published in the journal Hypertension, one of our best circulation family of journals, showing skyrocketing of blood pressure in some people who received the vaccine, to the point where it could put them at risk of stroke. And then [inaudible 00:49:05] and colleagues published in JAMA a paper from three small Nordic countries, and it’s stunning. 7,750 intracranial hemorrhages or blood clots within 28 days of taking the vaccine. And there in those countries it’s Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. And they strictly excluded anybody who had COVID during this time period. This is a stunning number. Thousands of neurologically devastated people within 28 days of taking the vaccine, I think hypertension playing a role.
I’ll tell you another one. Aortic dissection. It’s been well described now that the major blood tube in the body, with this surge of blood pressure, can actually rip and [inaudible 00:49:46] and this has been published in the peer reviewed literature. Dr. Malhotra mentioned all the different arrhythmias, young people with atrial fibrillation who shouldn’t have it. There’s been a study of people with defibrillators in. And [inaudible 00:49:58] defibrillator is great because you can actually measure what’s going in the heart before and afterwards, and sure enough, there is a burst of ventricular tachycardia and other arrhythmias with the vaccine. This is undeniable.
And then I think this big broad brush of cardiovascular disease that falls into the area of thromboembolic disease, blood clots, and this was a big feature in that recent documentary about sudden death, but blood clots. And the FDA agrees, and the peer reviewed literature is loaded with every permutation of blood clots possible. Intracranial hemorrhages, deep venous thrombosis going in lungs, pulmonary embolism. We’ve heard about ESPN, my favorite collage announcer Herb Kirkstreit, our favorite weatherman, Al Roker. These are just a… Deion Sanders had an arterial emboli syndrome. These are public figures now. Hailey Bieber has a thromboembolic event. These are public figures now, of which they’ve either come out and said they’ve taken the vaccine, or we have enough information to suggest they probably did, and they certainly have not refuted they didn’t take the vaccine, that have had these blood clotting events, both on the arterial and the venous side.
What I’m finding out in my practice, and the literature supports this, if somebody has a family history of a tendency towards blood clotting or they themselves have a tendency, then watch out. Any other factor that promotes blood clotting like supplemental estrogen, birth control pills, immobilization, smoking, all of those up the risks that someone who takes a vaccine is going to get a blood clot. And the blood clot syndromes are just… The alacrity that we need to have in clinical medicine is extraordinary. In my practice, I’ve seen two blood clots that have occurred in the arm. There’s a common syndrome called thoracic outlet obstruction syndrome in athletes, and so a blood clot conform in the arm because of some stasis and flow. Second best golfer in the world, Nelly Korda, blood clot in her arm. She needs to have surgery. And she said [inaudible 00:51:57] she took the vaccine, sends out a cryptic message, “Well, I think I know what caused this,” but didn’t come out and say it.
For my patient who’s had it, it was an emergency. She had to have her first rib removed and we actually physically get out the clot, the arm’s not the same. I can tell you, these cardiovascular syndromes are real. We’re both cardiologists. This is right in our wheelhouse. And I’m not having anybody come up to me and give me any other explanation outside of the fact that indeed it’s due to the vaccines. The literature agrees, the regulatory agencies agree, and at this point in time these injuries and problems don’t stop until the vaccines stop.
Dr. Malhotra: Yeah. And what’s the conclusion from this? I recently got sent a text message from a very well known, he doesn’t want to be named, cardiologist in the UK. And to summarize everything Peter’s just said, in his view, he said, we are dealing probably with the biggest crime against humanity since World War II.
Mr. Jekielek: So as we finish up, I want to do a couple of things here. You just mentioned a crime against humanity. That’s some of the strongest language you can possibly have. I want to get you to reiterate for me what the real risk is to people who have taken this vaccine, these genetic vaccines, and might feel concerned, what they can do personally. And then also we’ll round that out with what we need to do as a society just to obviously move forward.
Dr. Malhotra: I think first and foremost, people should be reassured that most of these issues appear to be apparent in the first few weeks to months after taking the vaccine. I would say one exception to this is corona artery disease. So for example, my father had a sudden cardiac death six months after the second dose. We’ve seen case studies explaining vaccines can even do that several months later. So the acceleration of coronary artery disease is definitely one thing which may be more long term, and we may see more and more heart attacks play out over the next few years because of that.
Having said that, as a cardiologist that focuses on heart disease reversal, people should… This is a great opportunity for people to really get themselves in shape, and that means eating properly primarily, cutting out ultra processed foods and low quality carbs and sugar, moderate exercise, getting stress levels in check. I think optimizing one’s health through lifestyle anyway is going to be a good antidote to reduce a risk of complications from the vaccine. That’s what I would say for sure.
And then maybe we need to think about a campaign. I remember, was it Nancy Reagan launched this Just Say No campaign in the ’80s against drugs? I think we maybe need to have a Just Say No campaign to drug companies and their excesses. Certainly in terms of what needs to happen on a political and government level, first and foremost, it should be the end of drug companies testing their own products and holding onto the raw data. That should never happen ever, ever again. We should never allow this situation to ever happen again. FDA should not be taking money from industry. They need to be independent of industry funding. Party political donations should not come from big pharma. Governments cannot do their job properly if they’re taking money from pharma, when it comes to the health of the population. It’s a no-brainer.
And I think that I’m… I believe in true democracy, Jan, and any person, any citizen, any good [inaudible 00:55:08] any citizen you may ask in the United States or the UK or Europe, whatever else, and if you put this to them, all of them, 99% of those people would agree that these links, these cozy relationships with pharma and regulators and government shouldn’t exist. And that means you need to change the law through democratic means.
Dr. McCullough: You remember the Big Tobacco settlement, in the end when there’s finally a recognition that smoking caused all these problems, the tobacco industry had to pay, and a lot of that payment went to research. We should have a vaccine settlement where there’s a massive amount of money that comes back from the vaccine manufacturers, as well as HHS, they actually promoted this, to fund vaccine injury research. We need strategies for screening, detection, diagnosis, prognosis, management. We need an approach, an agreed upon approach, for the serious syndromes, the cardiovascular, neurologic, immunologic syndromes. And we need a complete overhaul of the peer reviewed literature. We can’t have vaccine injury papers being blocked from publication. How can doctors possibly learn to manage them if we can’t publish a paper on how to manage vaccine induced myocarditis or vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura?
So we need this immediate about-face, and understand that the vaccines themselves have caused a public health crisis. A public health crisis. And I think the V-safe data, the Zogby survey, are consistent. Roughly 15% of people who have taken the vaccines are damaged by them. Most of them, the damage starts early, within the first few days. Some of these syndromes extend. And I would say the one wildcard that I’ve seen in my clinical practice is subsequent COVID infection. So there’s patients who are triple vaccinated and then they get COVID, so they have a fourth exposure now of the spike protein, and then here we go. That’s recently happened with Al Roker, the weatherman, and he’s in the hospital with blood clots. I’ve seen this in my practice where it’s been 18 months since someone’s taken a vaccine, but they end up with blood clots, pulmonary emboli. What’s happened in between? They’ve gotten COVID, because the vaccines don’t work, and so they end up getting COVID on top of it.
So the vaccines, the farther we get away from the vaccines in time, the better we can manage what’s going on. If people continue to take shots every six months, we’re in trouble. I think there is a cumulative risk here, where we could get deep into it. There’s blood clots that we can’t dissolve with blood thinners. There’s heart damage that we can’t recover, we can’t get it back. And so my fear is that this cumulative exposure… COVID is still out there. The vaccines haven’t ended the pandemic. So the fact that vaccinated people are getting COVID, then taking more vaccines… And we’ve seen public figures, we’ve seen President Biden, Walensky, Fauci and others [inaudible 00:58:02] and they’ve had COVID, they’ve had shots, Bill Gates, and they still keep taking more shots.
When Anderson Cooper and Bill Gates got together, I’ll never forget when Anderson asked Gates, he goes, “Hey Bill, we got COVID. You took three shots. I’ve taken two or three shots. Should we take more shots?” And Gates says, “We got to be safe, we should take more shots.” I would say, as a cardiologist, no. Stop taking more shots. You’ve already taken an enormous risk. Remember, people who’ve taken one, two, or three shots and nothing’s happened, doesn’t mean they’re risk free. That fourth shot can be the one that precipitates a cardiovascular event.
Dr. Malhotra: I think Peter makes a very good point. There is an accumulative risk. So one of the things is, we don’t want to scare people too much, but what we need to tell them is just say no right now. Make sure they tell everybody, their kids, their family, their parents, do not take any more of these shots. It’s all risk and no benefit.
Mr. Jekielek: Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Dr. Peter McCullough, it’s such a pleasure to have you on.
Dr. McCullough: Thank you.
Dr. Malhotra: Thank you.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Dr. Peter McCullough and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek.