In this compelling episode, I am honored to welcome Dr. Peter McCullough, a distinguished internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist renowned for his outspoken views on COVID-19 and vaccine safety. Dr. McCullough, with his extensive background in medicine and public health, has been at the forefront of the pandemic response, offering critical insights and alternative perspectives on treatment protocols and vaccine efficacy. His vast experience and unfiltered commentary provide a unique and thought-provoking discussion on the current state of healthcare and future challenges.
Our conversation delves into Dr. McCullough's profound journey through the pandemic, exploring his early advocacy for outpatient treatment protocols and the development of the widely known McCullough Protocol. He discusses the evolving landscape of COVID-19, from initial outbreak responses to current vaccine debates, shedding light on the complexities and controversies surrounding vaccine safety and public health policies. Dr. McCullough's candid reflections and data-driven analysis offer listeners a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted issues at play.
This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to navigate the intricate web of pandemic information, vaccine considerations, and future health threats. Dr. McCullough shares invaluable insights on maintaining heart health, understanding the risks associated with vaccines, and preparing for potential future pandemics. Whether you're a healthcare professional, a concerned citizen, or simply looking to stay informed, Dr. McCullough's expertise and forthright approach provide a refreshing and empowering perspective on today's most pressing health issues. Tune in to gain a deeper understanding and to equip yourself with knowledge for a healthier future.
Key Points From This Episode:
Rise of propaganda. [00:08:15]
Over-the-counter COVID treatment. [00:21:19]
Carbohydrate strategies for athletes. [00:30:38]
Ketones and calorie comparison. [00:34:04]
Fasting throughout history and religions. [00:45:40]
Myocarditis can be fatal. [01:02:26]
Safety concerns of taking vaccines. [01:08:07]
Conflict of interest in mandates. [01:13:35]
Vaccine safety concerns. [01:17:44]
Potential Long-Term Health Risks [01:19:11]
Natural detoxification products. [01:27:49]
Synergistic lifestyle considerations. [01:31:13]
Bird flu preparations. [01:39:50]
Censorship and propaganda in media. [01:44:30]
Looking to discover your science and optimize your life?
APPLY FOR HEALTH OPTIMIZATION COACHING
https://calendly.com/andrespreschel/intro-call-with-andres
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Click HERE to save on BiOptimizers Magnesium
People
Dr. Peter A. McCullough
Dr. Boz (Annette Bosworth)
Joel Kahn
Dr. Justin Marchegiani
Books and References
Courage to Face
In this compelling episode, I am honored to welcome Dr. Peter McCullough, a distinguished internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist renowned for his outspoken views on COVID-19 and vaccine safety. Dr. McCullough, with his extensive background in medicine and public health, has been at the forefront of the pandemic response, offering critical insights and alternative perspectives on treatment protocols and vaccine efficacy. His vast experience and unfiltered commentary provide a unique and thought-provoking discussion on the current state of healthcare and future challenges.
Our conversation delves into Dr. McCullough's profound journey through the pandemic, exploring his early advocacy for outpatient treatment protocols and the development of the widely known McCullough Protocol. He discusses the evolving landscape of COVID-19, from initial outbreak responses to current vaccine debates, shedding light on the complexities and controversies surrounding vaccine safety and public health policies. Dr. McCullough's candid reflections and data-driven analysis offer listeners a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted issues at play.
This episode is essential listening for anyone seeking to navigate the intricate web of pandemic information, vaccine considerations, and future health threats. Dr. McCullough shares invaluable insights on maintaining heart health, understanding the risks associated with vaccines, and preparing for potential future pandemics. Whether you're a healthcare professional, a concerned citizen, or simply looking to stay informed, Dr. McCullough's expertise and forthright approach provide a refreshing and empowering perspective on today's most pressing health issues. Tune in to gain a deeper understanding and to equip yourself with knowledge for a healthier future.
Key Points From This Episode:
Rise of propaganda. [00:08:15]
Over-the-counter COVID treatment. [00:21:19]
Carbohydrate strategies for athletes. [00:30:38]
Ketones and calorie comparison. [00:34:04]
Fasting throughout history and religions. [00:45:40]
Myocarditis can be fatal. [01:02:26]
Safety concerns of taking vaccines. [01:08:07]
Conflict of interest in mandates. [01:13:35]
Vaccine safety concerns. [01:17:44]
Potential Long-Term Health Risks [01:19:11]
Natural detoxification products. [01:27:49]
Synergistic lifestyle considerations. [01:31:13]
Bird flu preparations. [01:39:50]
Censorship and propaganda in media. [01:44:30]
Looking to discover your science and optimize your life?
APPLY FOR HEALTH OPTIMIZATION COACHING
https://calendly.com/andrespreschel/intro-call-with-andres
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Click HERE to save on BiOptimizers Magnesium
People
Dr. Peter A. McCullough
Dr. Boz (Annette Bosworth)
Joel Kahn
Dr. Justin Marchegiani
Books and References
Courage to Face
Dr Peter A. McCullough:
What propaganda does is immediately someone says, I have the truth, therefore you don't. I'm going to shut you down. And that becomes the mechanism of censorship. My views have changed over time as information has evolved in the pandemic. If you are fit from a cardiopulmonary perspective, then you are more likely to survive any health insult. That could be a major car accident, a major infectious disease like a pneumonia, an unexplained catastrophe like a ruptured appendix. You're more likely to survive cancer. You're more likely to survive a heart attack, actually. What are you going to do when the federal agents come knocking at your door?
Andres Preschel: I have no clue.
Andres Preschel: There is only one supplement that I think almost everyone on this planet should be taking and that's a full spectrum and highly bioavailable magnesium supplement because, well, let's face it, ever since the industrial revolution, our soil has been depleted. of magnesium and therefore our food is depleted of magnesium and on top of that our modern environments which are inherently overstimulating and stressful are constantly depleting our body of magnesium and unlike other nutrients this is not something your body can produce on its own it literally needs to get it from the diet. And one individual kind of magnesium alone is not enough. You actually need seven different kinds to support over 300 biochemical reactions that help regulate your nervous system, red blood cell production, energy production, managing stress and emotions, etc. And so the folks at Bioptimizers have made it very easy and convenient to add back in what the modern world leaves out. They've created Magnesium Breakthrough. Now I've been taking this for the past two years and the biggest benefits that I've seen are related to my evening wind down sessions and my sleep. I tend to be pretty overactive in the evenings, just totally overthinking everything that I do. And this has helped me wind down and get more restorative, more efficient to sleep. So I wake up feeling way more refreshed, more energized, more clear, more ready for the day. And the way that I see it, sleep is upstream of essentially every other health and wellness related habit and decision. Because if you're sleeping better automatically, you're gonna have more regular cravings. You're gonna have higher insulin sensitivity You can derive more of all these inputs like fitness, right? You make more gains you gain more muscle you burn more calories and you wake up feeling refreshed so that you can do it again and again and again and And then beyond the fitness, you have more energy to go for a walk, to do fun activities with friends. You are less stressed, so you can socialize anxiety-free. And you're also going to be retaining, refreshing, and refining your skills and information much, much better, so you won't forget any names. And, yeah, I mean, like I said, over 300 chemical processes that you're supporting with magnesium. And sleep, I mean, wow. Better sleep is just a better life in general. So, I found that extremely helpful on a personal level, and I'm sure that you guys will find it helpful, too. Your mind and body, and maybe even your spirit, will thank you. So anyway, if you want to get a sweet little discount off of this amazing, amazing magnesium supplement from Bioptimizers, all you have to do is visit the show notes. So you scroll down right now, takes just a couple seconds and boom, you'll have access to all seven different kinds of magnesium that your body needs. All you have to do is hit the link and use code KYP from Know Your Physio. KYP. That's all. Enjoy 10 to 22% off depending on the package you choose, whether or not you subscribe. I'm obviously subscribed because I don't even want to think about whether or not I'm going to get this essential supplement in the mail. And yeah, hope you guys enjoy that awesome stuff. And that's all for now. I'll see you guys on the show. All right, and we're back. Dr. Peter McCullough, it's an honor and pleasure to have you back on the show. I think it goes without saying. It's been too long. Yeah, it's been a while. The last podcast, as you can imagine, had a very mixed response. I was personally very satisfied with the outcomes. happy to support your mission. It goes without saying, there is controversy, which we'll get into on this show. But yeah, I'm on the side of pursuing truth at all costs, and it can have major repercussions. It can create a lot of pain. It might not be the… the most motivating thing for a lot of people, but I am here to satisfy a mission, and I'm honored to have you on the show to help us do that.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: So… Well, you know, thank you. Some of the more controversial topics are the most interesting. If we picked non-controversial things that everybody agrees on, You know, in the legal system, we would call that judicial notice. Judicial notice means we all agree on it. You know, the sky is blue. So, if we had a whole, you know, show on things that are just accepted as fact, you know, people may think it's kind of boring. So, believe it or not, the controversial topics, getting mixed comments is a good thing because that means audiences have multiple different points of view.
Andres Preschel: Yeah, absolutely. And before we dive in, would you mind sharing with my audience, those who haven't heard about you or tuned into our first podcast, a little bit about your background and credibility?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Sure. I'm Dr. Peter McColl. I'm a practicing internist and cardiologist. I'm also trained in epidemiology. I maintain my board certifications in both medicine and cardiology, two separate sets of boards now. And I've been in practice, I'm in my fourth decade of practice. I do a blend of clinical practice and academic medicine. That means I am an author. a reviewer, a presenter of scientific information, and in terms of kind of quantity or achievement, a typical professor of medicine that you'd have at a medical school or someone in graduate school would have about 25 listings in the National Library of Medicine. That would be considered good enough for a professor of medicine. I have now 700 listings in the National Library of Medicine. So in the interface between heart and kidney disease, I'm the most published person in my field in the world in history. And now in the pandemic illness and its countermeasures, I'm one of the most published people in the world in history. So I've been called upon by the U.S. Senate three times to give my testimony. U.S. House of Representatives, European Parliament, the lower house of Parliament in the U.K. and the Brazilian Chamber Senate. So, you know, I've been very careful and precise. I cite the data throughout. I'm a frequent commentator on multiple news stations. I've been on live primetime TV throughout the crisis hundreds of times.
Andres Preschel: Thank you. And, you know, I know that we're going to end up having many difficult conversations on this podcast. And I and I definitely just want to acknowledge that and acknowledge your courage, you know, in general and and my own and the listeners. And so can we speak a little bit about, you know, the spread of misinformation that you've been called out for and just your your thoughts on the matter and painting the picture for people.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: What we saw through the crisis, at least the first time in my lifetime I've seen it, is the rise of propaganda. This is very important. So propaganda is when one person tries to establish a power dynamic and force their point of view on someone else. That's propaganda. I had never experienced that before, but there are tools of propaganda and they come in various terms. You mentioned one, misinformation. Another one is disinformation, malinformation, anti-science, anti-vaxxer, conspiracy theorist. Those are about six propaganda terms. So when you see these terms arise, it's very important to recognize them as propaganda. They were used extensively during the Third Reich in Nazi Germany. And anytime someone uses that term or an entity, they're trying to establish a power dynamic. And The simplest way to explain it, if someone says, ah, that person's spreading misinformation, one is then claiming, well, they have the right information, and therefore, someone else has the wrong information. And also, it's a way to put down or denigrate somebody, is to put them down. So immediately, you're spreading something that's bad as opposed to spreading something that's good. So actually, I don't use those terms in my vocabulary. and I quickly point them out as tools of propaganda. What we knew through the crisis is there was emerging scientific observations, and there still are, and then there's multiple points of view. So we need to interpret that and discuss this. What propaganda does is immediately someone says, I have the truth, therefore you don't, I'm going to shut you down, and that becomes the mechanism of censorship. So, you know, and what I do is I simply, you know, clearly give my observations. I state the references or my own publications. I'm in clinical practice, so I'm entitled to make my own observations. And, of course, my views have changed over time as information has evolved in the pandemic. So, I think it's really important to point that out I checked in the medical literature, and in 2021, misinformation became a mesh term in PubMed. So propaganda has been fully installed now in academic medicine. There are conferences on misinformation. Did you say mesh term? A mesh term is a searchable term in the National Library of Medicine. So it became like a medical term in 2021. It wasn't a medical term 20 years ago. I mean, I've never taken a board question on that term. It became in 2021 during the pandemic. That should tell you something. Now there are conferences on this. I see Northwestern University had a conference on misinformation, the American Medical Association, WHO, American Board of Internal Medicine. They say the biggest threat to public health is not heart disease or cancer or diabetes, they say it's misinformation. So, you can see how in this hubris of the response to the pandemic, propaganda has swept in big time.
Andres Preschel: Can you disclose, if any, a conflict of interest?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah. To my knowledge, you know, we have an open dialogue here But by background, I am an independent clinical practice, so nothing I do there would have a, you know, conflict of interest is always a three-way relationship. So a relationship between you, me, and something else, and that there is a financial gain that results from someone being harmed. So conflict of interest is, you know, it has a legal standard. So nothing we're going to talk about today or any entity would represent conflict of interest. But by disclosure, I am an independent practice. I'm also the chief scientific officer of the Wellness Company, which is which is an independent medical system that's forming over the country. I'm a member of The Body, which is a private membership association. I'm the president of McCullough Foundation, and I have about a dozen other positions in various entities, but none of this today will meet a legal standard of conflict of interest.
Andres Preschel: Dr. Justin Marchegiani Noted. And let me ask you this. Why do you do what you do, Dr. McCullough?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: You know, from the onset of the crisis, I was a leader. I was developing early therapeutic approaches, working with the U.S. FDA on investigation of drug applications, clinical trials programs as a researcher. I had just changed my research focus to meet the crisis of the day. You know, the best contribution anybody can make in their career is to fulfill an unmet need, and boy, there was an unmet need of what people should do when they became ill. or early on in 2020, and there's been a great unmet need in evaluating safety of the widely used products now over the last four years. So, you know, that's the reason why I moved into this field. It's been very productive from a research perspective. One of our preprints was the most widely viewed and voted the most popular preprint of everything on the preprint server, which is a publication platform before it goes into full peer review. And some of my seminal papers to this day are the most widely viewed and influential papers guiding physicians and the public through the pandemic years.
Andres Preschel: And with that work and these very productive years, which I absolutely congratulate you and your teams on, what have the outcomes looked like? You know, what are the main sort of like KPIs that you're looking at, the outcomes that have shown you that these efforts have in fact been so successful?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Let's take early treatment. So, McCullough Protocol, the first published, peer-reviewed, multi-drug synthesis of how to treat patients, help them avoid hospitalization and death, that became the standard for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That effort alone, worldwide, has been attributed to saving hundreds of millions of hospitalization and tens of millions of deaths. That's how big it is. I mean, that is a huge, huge contribution. It's just the principles of reducing re-inoculation, and then into supportive nutraceuticals and supplements, antivirals, secondary antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and then anticoagulants. That's synthesis alone. And I was proud to be a part of a team, but I led the team, I led the author groups, American Journal of Medicine in 2020, then Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine later in 2020. Hit it, we weren't wrong on that, and thank goodness, people got the treatment that they needed to help avoid hospitalization and death. Sadly, an analysis by Verdkirk and Lindley and colleagues has demonstrated that basically in America, people who are hospitalized, they were hospitalized because they didn't receive the McCullough Protocol or something similar. I mean, it's really sad. The hospitalizations could have been avoided. Now, virtually all the deaths occurred in the hospital. So, by proxy, if we could avoid the hospitalization, people would have survived.
Andres Preschel: And is that protocol something that you can describe on this show for the folks tuning in? What does it include?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, conceptually it starts up front. by recognizing the infection involves viral adherence to the nose and mouth like any other viral infection. So the virus is in our nasal cavity in the back of our throat multiplying for about five days before it invades the body. People can feel a little sick. We call that the pre-symptomatic phase. They just feel like something, maybe just a little sore throat or something's a little off, but they don't have obvious symptoms of rhinorrhea, cough. So, those days of incubation are critical, and the virus is multiplying in an asymptotic fashion. So, if we give viricidal nasal sprays and washes, we actually can knock down viral replication. and give the body's own mucosal immunity a chance to fight it off. And so, this is critical. So, what we learned is, through roughly about 20 studies now, and very high quality, prospective, double-blind, randomized trials, controlled trials, that using, for instance, dilute iodine. It can be povidone iodine or Lugol's iodine. You literally can make a little saline bottle, a couple drops of iodine in it, and mix it up, spray it up the nose, sniff it back, spit it out, do that every four hours. You can take Scope or Listerine, put a few drops of iodine in it, gargle, good 30-second gargles every four hours. That type of protocol is enormously beneficial. We're talking about an 80% reduction in people being test positive at three days. I mean, that clearly reduces the spread more than wearing a mask or locking down or something else. If people just had a good nasal spray and gargle strategy. So, that's to iodine. And the reference there is Chowdhury and colleagues. That was published in January of 2021. We are starting to learn about through 2020. but about two dozen supportive studies. Now, for prevention, chronically, what we learned is that we probably ought to switch over to xylitol-based products. Xylitol-based products, by brand name, one would be Clear, another one would be Spry. Neomed is another. What xylitol does is it blocks the viral adherence in the nose and mouth a little, but it tends to promote the microbiome of there's about 800 good bacteria to fight off the bad bacteria, virus, and fungi. It actually is a microbiome strategy. And in a large prospective double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial by Balmworth and colleagues, there was over a 70% protection effect. that one could actually protect themselves against getting the pandemic illness or getting any other viral infection. That was better than any other prevention strategy. So it starts up top with virucidal, nasal sprays and washes, prevention strategy, and then reducing the re-inoculation. The best way to do that is open the windows, get fresh air. When I see you on Instagram, most of the time you're outside. Being outside, I have a patient with it right now. And I told him, I gave him McCullough protocol, I gave him what he needs. He has heart disease, you know, in two different domains, both heart failure and arrhythmias, so he's at higher risk. And I can tell you, I said, one of the last things I told him is get outside, open the windows, and do not spend, because when we have the the virus, and if we breathe it into a mask and re-breathe it back in the body, we're just re-inoculating the body. We want as much fresh air as possible. So that's the principles starting up front. The over-the-counter items that really have an evidence base, one is aspirin, which is a natural product. It works as an anti-inflammatory and blood thinner. Vitamin C, but in higher doses than we usually think. Now, vitamin C, we advise even 3,000 milligrams four times a day or higher. Vitamin D at higher doses, 20,000 units a day for at least five days. Everything we're talking about could be five to 30 days. Some are advancing vitamin D to 50,000 units. We have data there where vitamin D almost certainly is therapeutic. Every study on vitamin D was positive. Curcitin, a polyphenols supplement, zinc, and then we have an over-the-counter antiviral, which is famotidine. Famotidine is an antihistamine, as well as an anti-inflammatory, and it actually has properties in reducing viral entry through what's called the TMPRSS2 receptor. A wonderful study by Mura and colleagues demonstrated that. So that's what's called the OTC bundle of McCulloch protocol, and I'll shoot that over to you. You may want to show that as a B-roll. So, that's very useful. All the over-the-counter and people on their second and third infections now, they typically don't need anything more than what I just described because the virus has mutated to a much milder form and the over-the-counter strategies are fine. Now, beyond that, we move into antivirals. We have a choice of them, they're all prescription, and then antibiotics. And we learned through a couple studies now, when people got really sick, in the end they actually died of, in part, secondary bacterial pneumonia, just like they would with the other forms of viral illness, where it's not the virus itself, but it's secondary bacteria, so antibiotics play a role. We knew that a specific anti-prescription, anti-inflammatory drug used for gout was very important. It's called Colchicine. Colchicine is derived from a flower. It's a prescription drug, but it's a natural product. It's now a class 1A indication for inflammation around the lining around the heart. as well as we use it in the acute viral infection, and that's essential. There was a large trial called the CO-Corona trial that showed that that dramatically reduced hospitalization and by proxy by death. Corticosteroids play a role, both inhaled, budesonide, oral, prednisone. And then for very high-risk cases, I do this occasionally, those who are bed-bound, those who have blood clotting disorders, we actually use anticoagulants, like lumwalk or heparin. So what I just described is McCullough protocol. It's about four to six drugs. It's the most intensive thing we could do. If that was carried into the hospitalization, that would have dramatically improved hospital outcomes, but sadly, the outpatient protocols were shut off and people were actually given less in the hospital than they would have been given under my care as an outpatient.
Andres Preschel: And so this is a protocol that works regardless of vaccine status.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: That's true. Now, people become equally sick whether they've taken it or not. You know, the main things that have made the infection far more mild include the virus mutating to milder forms. All experts agree early treatment makes it much milder. And there are multiple, multiple studies now showing this drugs in combination can have as much as It's probably an 80 to 90% effect size. I mean, they really improve things dramatically. They just, you know, they don't completely abolish the infection, but they make it milder, easier to tolerate. People don't push the panic button and come in the hospital. And the third thing that has made the infection milder is natural immunity. Once we've been through the infection once, we have both antibody and cellular-based immunity, particularly in the mucosa, which you don't get through other methods. And that's what fights off the next infection. And a good reference to cite is by Chin and colleagues, New England Journal of Medicine, October of 2022, about 56,000 prisoners, 17,000 staff. Once they had gotten through one or the two of the first waves of infection, a subsequent infection in the current era had zero risk of hospitalization and death. And it didn't matter whether or not they took it in the arm or not. It just didn't matter.
Andres Preschel: Got you. So, you know, now now that we've in large, you know, overcome this global situation, this this pandemic, not entirely, but I'd say that in large we have. What kind of perspectives do you hope most people can adopt moving forward so that they can be more proactive, safer and healthier for the next one?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah, I would say, Andrus, a lot of the principles that you show on your show and on your Instagram is people getting leaner, meaner, much better diet. Meaner for the right reasons. Yeah, well, you know, I know you do it. You know, a lot of the girls ask me questions on Instagram. I never know how to answer it. They always ask me, you know, are those your real abs? Are those real or not? Or are they photoshopped? And I said, no, I think they're real. And I said, holy gullies. So there's a lot of girls out there with a lot of interest, just so you know. But the point is, Barry Franklin, who's a former research partner with me when I was in Southeast Michigan, has published many papers on this, and the general theme here is survival of the fittest. So if you are fit from a cardiopulmonary perspective, then you are more likely to survive any health insult. So that could be a major car accident, a major infectious disease like a pneumonia, an unexplained catastrophe like a ruptured appendix. You're more likely to survive cancer. You're more likely to survive a heart attack actually if you're fit at baseline. So people ask me, Dr. McCullough, why do you exercise? And well, exercise, you know, A, I feel better. I sleep better. There's a lot of these benefits. It helps keep my weight down. I don't think people lose weight by exercising, but they maintain their weight. But one of the main reasons to do it is to improve your survivability. You don't know when one of these events comes up. And we learned during the pandemic, it was the fittest who survived. Conversely, it was those who were unfit. Those were frail, overweight, diabetes. These were all risk factors. What I would tell people is that, listen, if they had trouble breathing walking down the hall in my clinic, I would worry about them getting the pandemic illness, when you think about it. I would just worry. Someone like you, I would not worry at all. And you know what's good evidence for my statement is, do you know of all the professional athletes, let's say pro football, basketball, hockey, tennis, what have you, to my knowledge, there were no hospitalizations due to the illness, none. These guys were so fit and strong. I think by the time the mandates came in in the NFL, something like 70% of people had already had the illness. So, you know, they were fine. I've had it three times now, the first time some pulmonary involvement. But again, I maintain my fitness, keep my weight down. In terms of diet, What we've learned there, what I advise is people prioritize high quality sources of protein, fish, beans, nuts, egg whites, nonfat dairy, occasional chicken and beef, and then fresh fruits and vegetables. And I try to tell people, listen, let's get rid of the three S's, sugars, starches, and starches are anything made out of flour, rice, and potatoes, and then saturated fats. And saturated fats, common sources are fast food, burgers, fries, cheesecake, what have you. Then people ask for some targets. On the carb side of things, try to target less than 120 net carbs per day. The net carbs is the total carb minus the fiber. And then on saturated fat, try to target less than 10 grams a day. And if one can do that, there's published studies suggesting, wow, you're in pretty good shape. And people say, well, what is that? Is that carnivore diet? I said, well, not exactly. South Beach, Atkins, Sugar Busters. It's really kind of an eclectic approach. I know you've studied this quite a bit yourself. I don't know if you'd agree with all that. But one thing that's clear during the pandemic is that every time we looked at it, sugar and measures of glycemic index, whatever, was related to poor outcomes. So the worst thing someone could do when they were sick is go eat a jelly donut.
Andres Preschel: Absolutely. I'd say, as far as I'm concerned, for the vast majority of people, especially in the United States, that's an approach that would work extremely well because we tend to overconsume carbohydrates, especially because they're so processed and we're so inactive. And so the saturation and glycogen stores will diminish insulin sensitivity, will screw up your leptin sensitivity with the increase of triglycerides. it's just absolutely terrible. But in very athletic populations, I think more carbohydrate is beneficial in that you need carbs to do the type of activity at the level of intensity that is related to increases in stroke volume and overall cardiovascular and pulmonary performance. And people like myself, I like to shoot for at least 300 grams a day, especially in my active days. And the only time that I personally have consume starchy carbs is after exercise when I'm super insulin sensitive. And the idea is to replenish the glycogen stores because starchy carbs readily convert to glycogen. And so I can reload that glycogen and, you know, take advantage of high insulin sensitivity to keep my glucose pretty stable. So obviously, you know, a bit nuanced, but for most people, I do think that that strategy is pretty good.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah, no, I concur with that. Now, I had run a marathon in every state in the United States, so I really did it over the years, did a tremendous amount of marathon training and racing. And I can tell you, I tried it different ways. So I tried to run a marathon kind of straight up, and then I tried carb loading the night before. So I would intentionally eat a big plate of pasta, for instance, whatever. And I can tell you, I think there was a difference in carb loading. I'll tell you the other thing about marathon running. Have you run a marathon?
Andres Preschel: I have not.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah. Well, if you run a marathon, you'll notice at about 18 miles, people call it hitting the wall. And what that is, in theory, you're exhausting all the glycogen stores. So the skeletal muscles in the body rely on glucose as their fuel. However, the heart relies on free fatty acids largely. At about 18 miles, you've exhausted glycogen everywhere. And people start to feel like they're fading a little bit, mentally fading, their pace slows down. And if you actually do take one of those power gels or those goos, they give them out at the races. Some people eat a banana, what have you. After a few minutes, and you continue to run, you can actually feel the difference. And I have noticed that myself. I remember when Lance Armstrong, who's a great cyclist, when he ran his first marathon, and he ran a great time, by the way. He ran like two hours and 30 minutes for a first time marathon, which is incredible. He did something like two dozen power gels through the whole thing. And normally I would hold back to a mile 18, I would do about two, but he just pounded them all the way through.
Andres Preschel: He just kept his glycogen stores topped off the whole time. Yeah. And you know what? I haven't done a marathon, but I've done all kinds of ridiculous fitness. I mean, you name it, I've done it all except marathons. And sometimes I'll glycogen load for about a week. just to really, really saturate those glycogen stores. And there's actually a technique in exercise physiology where you spend about a week training low-carb to kick up insulin sensitivity and glute floor receptors, and then you'll do the carb loading, and it really helps you retain that glycogen and utilize glucose a little more efficiently. But then during the event, especially if it's a longer duration, taking gels to keep your glycogen source topped off. I've also found, and there's a lot of good research on the use of essential amino acids to reduce that bonk. And also very powerful ketone esters like ketonate, KE4. readily converts to, well, it actually contains beta-hydroxybutyrate, like that, especially for endurance events, the gels, the amino acids when you're feeling the bunk, and then ketones will work really well. Obviously, according to what someone's doing and according to their insulin sensitivity and their glucose levels and the intensity and the duration, It can get really, really specific, but just generally speaking, these are recommendations for athletic populations that will work, will help them maintain high levels of performance.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Right, so this is interesting. I know you've studied this, but glucose gives four kilocalories per gram. Fat gives nine kilocalories per gram, but ketones are in between. We have three circulating ketones, beta-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate, and acetone. So on my show, McCullough Report on Courageous Discourse Subject, I had a chance to interview Dr. Boz. Have you had a chance to talk with her? I've not, no. You should look her up. Now, she's an internist, Annette Bosworth, who is published on The Ketogenic Diet, and she herself does it, and she has a lot of followers on YouTube. You ought to have her on your show. I'll send you her contact information. And I had her on just because I'm really unfamiliar with The Ketogenic Diet, and she's done a lot of research on this. I'm somewhere in between. When I put that show on, immediately, again, talk about controversy. Talk about controversy. There was mixed reviews. There was immediately the plant-based people were saying, how could you have done that, Dr. McCullough? I said, well, I just wanted her point of view. So, you know, controversy is everywhere, whether it's keto, which is kind of meat and fat and virtually no fruits and vegetables, or plant-based, which is, you know, all fruits and vegetables and other plant sources, there is controversy. But controversy is, in a sense, very educational. It's fun. We shouldn't stray away from this. No one called her a conspiracy theorist, or I've had Joel Kahn on, who's a plant-based cardiologist. No one calls him- Huge fan of Kahn. Yeah, no one calls him anti-science. Joel was actually one of my mentors when I was in training. But this is the point I'm making is, I'm glad you had me back on, is we shouldn't be able to talk about these things. Why can't we? We're just trying to learn.
Andres Preschel: Absolutely. And a little bit about, I want to get your take on something related to being in a ketogenic state, not necessarily being in a ketogenic diet. The way I see it, I think being in a ketogenic state, following a ketogenic diet, it has There's certain situations and periods of time where it's very therapeutic. I think chronically, I don't think it's the best because, again, I want to make sure that I have the substrates that I need to readily create energy, and beta-oxidation of fat is a much slower process than glycolysis. You know, I track my my biometrics overnight with the whoop and I have found actually was a I happened to make this discovery and I happened to discuss it with a few experts in the field of physiology and HRV, specifically Dr. Jay Wiles. We spoke about how being in a ketogenic state, like having an earlier dinner, but on top of that, considering supplementation of KE4, ketone esters, it shifts the respiratory quotient. So your breathing rate will decrease and that is associated with a more parasympathetic state. And so what I'm trying to say here is we, kind of by accident discovered that being in a ketogenic state seriously improves sleep efficiency and increases HRV. So for example, when I can't afford to get too many hours in bed for whatever reason, I'm traveling or I have to wake up super early, I'll take the KE4 and I notice that my sleep quality and sleep efficiency is much higher and I'll wake up with a higher sleep score. But I'm curious, you know, considering that a parasympathetic state is required for the body to heal, especially when it's compromised, you know, so with, you know, some of the things that we're discussing here, do you think that being in a kid or have you seen the research? Has have you seen some kind of relationship between a ketogenic diet or ketosis and improving some of these outcomes?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: I asked Annette Bosworth that question. I'm not an expert on the ketogenic state, but she has a case study of her mother, which is pretty dramatic, where her mother had widely disseminated cancer and was really just going down in the ketogenic state, changed the entire inflection It was an inflection point in the trajectory of her cancer. Her mother's alive today, which is stunning. Annette herself has lost considerable weight. And I asked her, I said, what's the number one benefit of the ketogenic diet? You know what she told me? She said improved mental clarity. Yeah. Have you noticed that yourself?
Andres Preschel: I have. I've noticed that is the case when I'm intermittent fasting, and I think a lot of that has to do with intermittent metabolic switching, going in and out of ketosis, and having that metabolic flexibility where the body can readily use ketones or it can use glucose depending on what's available. And so there isn't sort of like this lag. Like I think a lot of people just, their body isn't very effective at performing in a ketogenic state. And so they can't, and, and, or, well, typically combination, they don't have very good glucose control, insulin sensitivity. What I'm trying to say here is the metabolic flexibility is compromising a lot of people, and they need to be in a fed state constantly to feel good. So I think through intermittent fasting and being in a ketogenic state periodically throughout the day, that's helped me a lot. And it's not uncommon for me to take that ketone supplement that I was describing before a podcast, for example. It really helps me enable this sort of like flow state that I very much, you know, That has a considerable effect on my performance in a podcast. I didn't take it before this podcast. I'm just feeling pretty good. But I have certainly noticed that that's the case for a lot of shows. And I noticed that my mental endurance increases when I'm in a ketogenic state and I take the ketone esters for sure.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: But listen, you know what I do is for patients, I always take a weight history. I ask them what their weight was at age 18, what's their highest adult weight, and where they are now so I can size them up. Most people actually have a weight trajectory since age 18. And in one of the NIH epidemiologic studies in cardiovascular disease, about 10% of people are within, I think, 10% of their age 18 weight. I imagine you are. you know, from where you are at 18. I know I am. I'm just kind of barely in that range, and I think you want to kind of stay there. But, you know, the average person who's obese, they may have actually may have gained 100 pounds since age 18. You know, that's a huge adaptive load in the body. But I can tell you, when I'm hungry, I just seem like I have an edge. I feel better. Obviously, I'm hungry, but I have a mental edge. I think my exercise is better, sexual function better. I just think that it's okay to be hungry. And I do ask patients this. I said, how do you profile? Are you hungry? And you'll be amazed with so many obese patients, I'll ask them, when was the last time you felt hungry? And they'll say, well, it's been many years. That obese people don't experience hunger because they're chronically satiated.
Andres Preschel: Wow. It's interesting that you say this because, I mean, there is a key difference between, you know, there are many differences between physiological and hedonic hunger. Like a lot of people just eat out of habit. They just, you know, enjoy the experience. They get that instant gratification out of eating. Whereas like physiological hunger, it's like your body needs to eat. And that can drive certain behaviors like it can increase your energy, it can increase your mental clarity. I mean, I think that has a lot to do with the evolutionarily preserved mechanisms of like, when we're hungry, go seek food and survive, you know? But yeah, hedonic hunger is just totally, totally different. And I mean, if you look at, well, why do we put on weight in the form of fat to begin with? Well, it's a very efficient way to store calories. And folks that are obese have hundreds of thousands of calories stored away that they can use. Technically speaking, I mean you and I have at least 100,000 calories stored as fat so theoretically we can go weeks without eating, as long as we're hydrating, and ideally, we have some sort of salt or electrolyte. So, yeah, we have a lot.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, let me ask you this, Andrew. Several of our friends, in fact, one of the doctors at the wellness company does this, where five days a month, they just fast. They don't eat anything, just have some fluids and probably some vitamin supplements. What do you think about that?
Andres Preschel: I think it's great. I think that might work well for some men. I think when it comes to women, they are just so underrepresented in the research, especially pre-menopausal women and considering how much a woman's hormones will fluctuate throughout the month and the different repercussions that they can have physiologically, especially in a fasted state. I think it's honestly irresponsible for young women to just fast indiscriminately like us men, like we can do. I think there has to be very special consideration towards where they are in their cycle and if they're pre- or post-menopausal. There's a lot of good science and research from Dr. Kayla Osterhoff and Dr. Stacey Sims. They differ in opinion on some topics, but they both have incredible, really powerful wealth of knowledge when it comes to female physiology, performance, hormones, and longevity. So I highly recommend for the women and even for the men that are curious to tune into their content and check them out. So as far as men fasting five days out of the month, I think that's great. Obviously, there's more context that I'm not familiar with. What are they doing during the fast? Are they hydrating? Do they have electrolytes? How are they reintroducing food after the fast? Aside from those five days, in the 25 days, are they exercising? Are they increasing carbohydrate? Are they decreasing? There is so much more context, obviously, that to consider, but I think generally fasting is great. It's physiologically consistent. It's biologically consistent. You can derive and really leverage evolutionarily preserved mechanisms that give us longevity, improved quality of life, improved performance. There's a great study that I absolutely love and I reference it all the time by Cabot et al. 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine on fasting. If anyone tuning in is curious about why it's so consistent with our evolution and how it works to support our longevity and our performance. So, yeah.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: I mean, that's… You know, there was a New York Academy of Sciences dedicated issue a few decades ago where they analyzed all the preclinical data on fasting in various animal models. And every single one of those studies was positive. So cellular longevity improved, telomere length on the chromatin improved, every cellular function. Yeah, it's just, it's extraordinary. And isn't it interesting that virtually every major religion in it has some fasting in it.
Andres Preschel: So it's been around, It's been around a very long time and we were designed to fast realistically. I want to be specific about something. It's not like fasting is magic. It's not like, oh, fasting has all these benefits. It's like our modern lifestyles have all these detriments and we're simply returning to a biological baseline. Our body is designed to function that way. It's not designed to consume processed foods anytime we have even the smallest craving. I don't think fasting is good. I think our modern life is bad and we're just returning to our design, our intelligent and beautiful design. Yeah, I mean, this was a very fun little rabbit hole here. I'll tell you what, I mean, anytime that I feel a little under the weather, I feel sick, I know, objectively speaking, sleeping better is one of the best things that I can do and taking it easy, one of the best things that I can do. And anytime that I feel like my body's compromised or I'm injured, I will definitely go super low carb, ketogenic, Because I'm not moving much, and I don't really need that glucose as a substrate. I want to keep my glucose more stable, and I want to shift into a more parasympathetic state, and it seems like being in ketosis helps us do that.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: How much sleep do you schedule per night?
Andres Preschel: I like to spend eight hours in bed, so that gives me about 30 minutes tops to fall asleep, and then I get five REM cycles, which average about an hour and a half. I have gone really, and no pun intended, really deep on sleep. I track my sleep and I'm able to get a 100% sleep score any night that I choose on the week. 100%, anytime I want.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: I take it super seriously. Yeah, I've taken an interest in sleep as well, just because I see so many patients. And it's such a common complaint, especially as people get older, that they are not satisfied with their sleep. And what I know about it is someone your age, my age, the requirement's about 8.2 hours. per night on average. And you're right, it's a weave of REM and non-REM sleep. There are studies called polysomnography studies that measure a whole variety of variables, including this kind of what's called pressure to go to sleep, and then, of course, the sleep quality. Do you know what? One of the biggest factors, a lot of people don't know this, that really impairs sleep architecture, really just impairs it. It sometimes destroys it. Is it temperature? No, it's actually alcohol.
Andres Preschel: Oh yeah, alcohol for sure. Yeah, yeah, for sure.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: But a lot of people, you listen, they drink, they have a drink to kind of relax and go to bed. Oh yeah. But the quality of sleep is not good. So the next day they wake up, they're not as well rested. There's an increase in stress hormones led by cortisol and others. So the stress hormones are up, but they don't feel so good. And then they feel pressure to have a drink the next night, and it becomes a vicious cycle. And so I always refer to a book called The 28-Day Alcohol Challenge. It was written by two guys in the UK who studied all the benefits of stopping drinking, and these guys really drank a lot over there. And one of them was the restoration of sleep. Now, it took about 28 days of abstinence from alcohol, and then the sleep cycles returned, because it takes a while, right? And I always tell my patients, listen, why don't you give a try of not having any alcohol at all, for 28 days and see if sleep isn't better. And you knew it right away, because I think you knew the data right away. And that is a strategy. And I personally don't drink. I know what it tastes like. I haven't had anything to drink probably for 30 years. But I can tell you, I do benefit greatly from having a wonderful night's sleep and doing that. And I recommend that to my patients as well. The number of people who become dependent on alcohol or sleep medicines to try to put them to sleep, then they get a bad night's sleep. It's a vicious cycle.
Andres Preschel: Absolutely. So I actually had Kristen Holmes, who's the chief science officer for Whoop on the podcast, and she told me that They'd done a study with their millions of users and they found that the two things that had the most consistent peak positive improvements in sleep by far were avoiding alcohol and having an earlier dinner. And so it makes sense, right? It destroys autonomic nervous system function and tanks HRV, increases resting heart rate, respiratory rate. It totally takes you out of that parasympathetic state. Your body's preoccupied with dealing with this toxin, the stressor, and it can't get that deep sleep, among other reasons why that might be the case.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Have you ever been over to Europe? One time I went to some medical meetings in Spain and Portugal. These guys didn't start eating till like midnight. They drank wine all the way through dinner and at the end they had espresso at 1 a.m. Yeah. Yeah.
Andres Preschel: Oh my gosh Yeah, so my next-door neighbor and and he's one of my best friends. He's actually from the Canary Islands very Spanish European guy and he drinks espresso he has late dinners and has espresso and at night. And I think that he's I think there's like 25% of the population has the liver enzymes or more liver enzymes to break down caffeine. And so, you know, whereas for most people, the half life of caffeine is about five hours until you don't want to consume caffeine within 10 hours of bedtime. I think in these folks, they can get away with having caffeine before bed and it doesn't really have as much of an influence because they can break it down more quickly and more efficiently. But yeah, I grew up in the Latin house. We ate late dinners. Nowadays, even with my genetics, I have earlier dinners and I feel a whole lot better about myself. But I'll tell you what, I'm going to send you a little guide on sleep efficiency that I created that leverages all kinds of physiological mechanisms and gives you a lot of really good specific action items and their different mechanisms. I'm sure you'll appreciate it. No matter how many hours you spend in bed, it will make every hour more productive and will help you feel more refreshed in the morning. So anyone tuning in, I mean I'll send this, I'll put it in the show notes, but I'll send it to you and I'd love for you to give it a try. And if it's okay with you, I'd love to shift gears back into some of the stuff that we were discussing earlier. But I'm sure, you know, at a baseline, everything that we just touched on is very productive for folks that want to prevent disease, that want to live better, live longer. And I highly suggest that they tune into some of the resources that we mentioned. So I'd love to speak a little bit about Um, myocarditis, uh, you know, you had mentioned that a lot of these folks, these athletes, they had, uh, no, you know, they all survived the, the, the, I, I don't want to get sensitive, but they survived what happened. Um, and, uh, but there were some folks that got that thing in their arm and they, They passed away. So, you know, can you tell us a little bit more about your take on myocarditis, how it's evolved since our last conversation, and what the recommendations and perspectives look like today?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, what I can tell you is certainly the medical literature has evolved. I have multiple publications now on this problem. And, of course, the story is evolving. Now, before the pandemic, there were sporadic cases of myocarditis. They could be caused by Parvovirus or Coxsackievirus. I had a handful of them in my practice, a handful, I think two to be exact. And one of them died. Now, before the pandemic, the most lethal cause of myocarditis was called giant cell, giant cell. We don't know what causes it, but the biggest impetus to get a biopsy of the heart of a young person with myocarditis was to actually diagnose giant cell myocarditis. And before the pandemic, myocarditis is in 90% men, 10% of women. There's something about androgen receptors post-puberty that seems to prime the heart for myocarditis, again, before the pandemic. And there was a very famous clinical trial done by the National Institutes of Health, and a lot of it took place here in Dallas because the pathology lab was here under the direction of Dr. Maximillian Boua. He was one of my professors. It was called the Myocarditis Treatment Trial, MITT. And what we learned from that is that, again, the biopsy important for giant cell. Cortical steroids, in general, just didn't work. And not true with our current sets of myocarditis, but true with those. And that it was largely supportive care, anti-inflammatory drugs. such as, you know, like naproxen or ibuprofen. And then towards, you know, 2010 to 2015 or so, there was a whole series of papers on pericarditis, or inflammation around the heart. Sometimes it's myocarditis and pericarditis are together. It's called myopericarditis. And there, the critical studies, first authors Masio and colleagues from Turin, Italy, demonstrated that a drug called colchicine was very important. We had used this for gout. It works to inhibit the microtubular assembly of the granulocytes that are in the chest, and it dramatically reduced the risk of hospitalization and death and chest pain and became a go-to drug for us. And again, colchicine is derived from actually the petals of a flower. So, it's a natural product, but it's prescription. And recently, in 2023, of interest, the US gave colchicine a broad indication for the prevention of atherosclerotic heart disease because it cuts down on the inflammation in cholesterol plaque in the coronary arteries as proven in three trials. So you see a lot of prescription use of colchicine. The dose in the United States is 0.6 milligrams a day. It's well tolerated. a very inexpensive generic, which is great news. So that's myocarditis before the pandemic. Then we came into 2020. That was the year where we largely had the infection, you know, that was it, just the infection and what we could do. to respond to it, we had no ambulatory emergency use authorized products at all. So, there was a great concern that the virus itself could cause myocarditis. And this stems from work done by Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, published in 1992. in, actually, my former journal that was edited in my office, American Journal of Cardiology, and he showed that with the beta version of the human genus of the virus, if we flooded the animal heart with the virus, we could cause myocarditis. So it was like, oh boy, it looks like the virus itself caused myocarditis. So, the U.S. military, the Israeli military, multiple sports teams through 2020 had a big program to screen for myocarditis after the infection. The most notable one was in the Big Ten, NCAA Big Ten. So, that's University of Michigan and, you know, the other teams in the Big Ten. And the paper was published by Daniels and colleagues in JAMA. And what they demonstrate after screening tens of thousands of athletes, by the way, about two-thirds of the athletes got it through the first year, that they came up with about 36 putative cases. And they had done blood testing with cardiac troponin, biomarkers, EKG, ultrasound, and MRI. About 36 putative cases where there were some abnormalities, no hospitalizations, no deaths, nothing serious. There was another paper by Tuvali and colleagues from Israel, again 2020, no increase in rates of myocarditis in 2020 from prior years. So, we had been, and U.S. military and Israeli military, again, couldn't find serious cases. So, we had concluded in 2020 that the illness itself does not cause serious myocarditis. So, the teams gave up on screening programs. Everybody disbanded. However, there was a false narrative that arose from the hospital literature, which many times in the hospital, we measure a cardiac troponin. It's a blood test for heart injury. It comes in standard panels. but is positive in about a third of patients with serious infection before the pandemic. So, there'd be pneumococcus, klebsiella, influenza. So, troponin is elevated in about a third to a half of people in the ICU just because of strain on the heart. It's a very sensitive test. Well, that troponin mapped to certain ICD codes and databases that filled up hospital automated sources of data. So, if one did epidemiologic research, you'd conclude that some huge number of people had cardiac injury who are hospitalized with the virus. So, that immediately came to this conclusion. that the illness itself causes a lot of myocarditis, way more than, you know, the products that were introduced. And it was just a false narrative. No, when carefully studied, adjudicated, because we need to have the blood test plus the imaging and clinical impression, the illness itself doesn't cause significant myocarditis. So that was 2020. Then we come in with, in October, 22nd of 2020, the U.S. FDA, as they were moving the products forward in evaluation, in a slide on a U.S. FDA internal meeting in the fall of 2020 said, you know what, they can cause myocarditis. Like they expect the products to cause myocarditis. It's like, wow. Now they listed other things like blood clots, neurologic damage, whatever. It turns out everything they anticipated turned out to be true. Then the products introduced in December 10th of 2020. By June of 2021, the FDA, there are so many cases of myocarditis, the FDA and CDC get together and they say, you know what, they cause myocarditis. Official warning, they cause myocarditis. 90% are boys, ages 18 to 24 is the peak age range. But the statement was that it's mild and that it's transient.
Andres Preschel: But by- Sorry, as in they disclose that it's a jab.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: was causing that. Well, it's after taking the products in the arm. So yeah, so the FDA and CDC use the word that it's mild and transient. But wait a minute, it's June of 2021. How do they know? I mean, we have to follow people over time. So then there was a whole series of papers that said, wait a minute, this isn't mild. Tracy Hogue from UC Davis pointed out the vast majority are hospitalized. There was another paper from Cedars-Sinai. The vast majority of the kids are hospitalized. You know, being hospitalized by definition is not mild. That's considered a serious adverse event. And then The second observation is that, wait a minute, it's not transient. Jenna Schauer published in Pediatrics that these areas of damage were sustained over a long period of time. There was a paper from Korea, another one from Taiwan saying, listen, this damage to the heart is not going away. There was a paper from Yale that also demonstrated that the damage to the heart that we see on MRI is not going away. And then I think the shoe really dropped in a paper by Holscher and colleagues, I'm senior author, where we took the fatal cases, re-adjudicated them, studied everything about them in the world, and published this in the European Society of Cardiology. It's the most downloaded and read paper in that journal in the last two years. It's got a graphical abstract. It just got a series of letters to the editor and responses that clearly showed the myocarditis in some is fatal. it's fatal. So, you know, the one lesson learned is our regulatory agencies should never be nonchalant about something. When something comes out, there should be a great concern. And if there's an air of caution, it should be towards safety. Say, right, this is heart damage. It could be fatal. And then a critical paper was published by Kata Gianni and colleagues, Somebody who you probably should have on your show, he's a Brazilian endocrinologist researcher, really brilliant guy, who said, wait a minute, this is going to be like other forms of myocarditis in that when there's a surge of adrenaline with exercise and sports or during 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. with a normal waking cycle, that this can trigger an arrhythmia because the heart is inflamed, the electrical depolarization comes down, it finds a zone of slowed conduction, and so it goes around it and then goes back up through it and causes reentry. That's ventricular tachycardia. And that just, in a young person, can be very fast and quickly take down the heart to ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest. And so this was all shown in the Hulsher paper. There's a key figure six in that paper that demonstrates the sequence. And the main point of the Hoescher paper and then papers by Gill and others is that the first manifestation of this form of iatrogenic myocarditis is sudden death, that very few people get a chance to have a diagnosis ahead of time. So some people have chest pain and it warns them enough where they get an evaluation, but the majority of people take it in the arm, they don't maybe feel generally sick, and they're fine, and then a year and a half or two years later, they're out exercising like you, and then boom, we see a cardiac arrest. And that's our great concern. Hulsher and I have just published a recent paper of a man, he's 42, and he had his cardiac arrest right in front of his kids about a year and a half after the last administration in the arm, and it was just horrific. So, that's our great current concern today, that in every single regulatory agency agrees the products cause it. And it's so far advanced now. There's thousands of papers on this. A paper by Crossett and colleagues has found the genetic material from the product in the human heart at autopsy, so it's physically there, you can detect it by reverse qPCR. That bone marrow oncology sustained for the S protein, it's clearly there, that's the protein produced from the genetic code, clearly there in the heart. So, there's no doubt about it. This is a great concern. And very notable figures have had this. Bruce Arians, he's a former coach of the Tampa Bay Bucks. He took several of these in the arm. Ends up with myocarditis in the fall of 2023. He's in the hospital for several months. There's been notable athletes that have had it. Fabian Schrumpf, who's a terrific Swiss Olympic marathoner, she took three of these, said, listen, I've got it. You know, I've got myocarditis. I'm taking off from running. I don't want to have a cardiac arrest. And then we have the terrible case of Oscar Cabrera Adamus, So, he's a Dominican player. He's playing over in Spain. They have mandates. He says, listen, I don't want to take this. I don't want to take this. He's forced to take it, and sure enough, he has a cardiac arrest on the floor filmed, and of course, when the arrest occurs right in the game, we're ready with a defibrillator, so there's a good chance he can be saved. They rush out there. They save him. He comes out, and he tweets, I have myocarditis, and it's because I took it. So, he's really, really clear with people about this. And so, he's out of sports for a while. He's hoping this is going to settle down and return. Did not take a defibrillator, as far as I know. And he's on a medical-grade stress test. There's a picture of him with the multichannel lead. And he actually has a cardiac arrest. on the treadmill and they can't resuscitate him and he dies. Now, that was a couple years after taking it in the arm. So, I still think he stands as the best documented case of what we think is happening now nationwide and globally with this large number of deaths in relatively young people.
Andres Preschel: So, you know, in the current state of the world, in my opinion, is that we are not in a state of emergency the way that we were, you know, 2020, 2021, 2022. Let me ask you this, you know, how would you describe the current state, relatively speaking, and the overall efficacy of taking it in the arm today, given the circumstances and what we've learned?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, you know, I'm glad we discussed it the way we did, Andrews, is we always discuss safety before efficacy. So, myocarditis and cardiac arrest are clearly a major safety concern, but besides cardiovascular, there's also neurologic, like stroke and Guillain-Barre syndrome, thrombotic, blood clots, immunologic, and then there's an emerging safety signal for cancer. So, there's five things we're worried about in safety. That's way too much. from taking it in the arm. Yeah, that's way too much for a product to take in the arm. I mean, if I was to give you a pill and said it could cause, you know, disease or problems in these four areas, you'd say, no, I don't want to take the pill. I mean, no one would. The challenge here is that there was great fear as your question lays out that, you know, there's a different context back in end of 2020. There's great fear. And there was an active suppression of early treatment. So, you know, we mentioned the McCullough Protocol and how successful it was, but it was still heavily suppressed. It was not promoted by the government agencies. Healthcare systems didn't promote it. Healthcare systems, by and large, didn't have any of their own protocols. I'm kind of surprised Harvard didn't want to compete with me and have the Harvard Ambulatory Protocol or Mayo Clinic or Emory. It was kind of shocking that they stood back and said, listen, we're out of intellectual ammo. We don't know what to do. They literally didn't know what to do with the next case who got sick outside of tell them, you know, wait until you get sick enough to go to the hospital and then we'll follow a government protocol. I mean, the hospitals could even improve upon a really kind of a bare bones, nihilistic government protocol. It's really stunning. So, when the new products roll out, they're emergency use authorized December 10th, 2020. On efficacy, what we knew is that the two administrations called the primary series, that took a month to get those. And then there were two months of observation. That was it. That's all we knew at December 10th, 2020 was just three months. Now, the way they set up the trials, many have criticized this, is whatever happened in the first month didn't count. So, if they happen to get the illness, it didn't count. And that violates a principle called intent to treat. Intent to treat means once randomized, we intend to treat them as one of those two strategies, either get it or get placebo, and everything counts. So, in randomized trials, intent to treat counts and we carry things forward. They cheated. And what we found out is there was a whole explosion of cases as soon as people took the first administration. So, we were told that there was 90% efficacy, but when fairly analyzed, it was probably 70% or less. Now, the primary outcome in the studies was simply getting the respiratory illness. That's it. Not hospitalization and not death. Just whether or not you got the sniffles at home. And let's say, fairly analyzed, there was a 70% reduction of that over the course of the two months of observation. So when they came out, the consent form said that they don't reduce hospitalization and death. There was no studies to show that they reduced transmission. And all we could expect is that there would be a reduction in kind of getting the upper respiratory tract a cold. That's it. And so with that modest efficacy, there was all these hyperbolic claims, like here, take it so you can travel, take it so you can protect your parents and your grandparents. It's like, where did that come from? That wasn't part of the clinical trials package. It was just all of this extrapolation and exaggeration from the clinical trials. So the approach should have been much different in my view. It said, listen, These were developed. They may help you reduce the first incidence of this over three months. We don't know what happens at month four. No one would know what happens at month four. We don't know if this is durable or not, and it should have been modestly offered. modestly, should never have been overstated, never should have been mandated, obviously, because we didn't know. And yet it took on a life of its own. What we learned in the first few months is there were so many people who took the primary series who got really sick. They got hospitalized or they died due to the illness. The breakthrough infections came in by the thousands. And so the CDC was keeping track of it. And in May of 2021, the CDC said, we give up. They're obviously not working. We give up. There's all kinds of emails that have been uncovered now by the House Select Committee where everyone at the NIH and CDC are emailing each other saying, listen, these aren't working at all. They're failing. And then by the summer of 2021, our CDC director, Rochelle Lewinsky, came out, and she said fairly, they don't stop transmission. They do not. That means someone who took them can just go ahead and cough on somebody and transmit the virus. They were useless in blocking transmission. And it's interesting that she came out and made that pronouncement. And you know, it was after that time that almost all the big corporations and even the big sports teams, that's when they started their mandates. And the only reason for a company or sports team to have a mandate is if the product really reduced transmission, if it really sterilized the virus and they could improve the infectious disease risk of the workplace. But every company that mandated it at that time knew that the products had failed. It was broadly announced.
Andres Preschel: Does that imply a conflict of interest? What's that?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, it implies some other motivation outside of efficacy. Your question was on efficacy. What could have motivated the corporations in the sports leagues? Well, what we learned is the Biden administration, HHS, had a community core program, which was billions of dollars of funding. It went to thousands of media outlets. It went to churches, various ethnic groups, went to the sports teams, and in a sense, you know, contractually bound these entities to start mandating it. And the NFL was the best example. I told you, the NFL was carefully monitored. You know, Aaron Rodgers has been on, he should go on your podcast. He's a good guy. Aaron got McCullough protocol, by the way. So did Joe Rogan. Aaron has said that, listen, you know, he already had it. And, you know, they had all these protocols in the NFL that said you had to do testing, you had to wear a yellow band and all this stuff. And I think it was about 70% of the NFL had it, already had the infection before the mandate came out. So they were already done with this, right? And then the mandate comes down, the NFL starts talking about a mandate in the spring of 2021. The NFL Player Association says, no, we don't want this. We don't want myocarditis. We don't want any of these risks. And I think the Biden HHS Community Corps ultimately influenced the NFL League to say, listen, we're going to mandate this. So when they mandated in August of 2021, You know, the players then have to be conscripted into doing this. Notably, Aaron Rodgers, Cole Beasley, some others publicly said they weren't going to do it. We don't know how many people privately said they weren't going to do it. And then they did it. And we had cases of blood clots, you know, on a Cleveland Browns player, Jets player, or a few other cases that arose. And the program continues. And then once we get to March of 2022, and we're still in the middle of the pandemic, the NFL says, we're done, we're dropping the mandates, we're dropping all protocols as if COVID didn't exist anymore. And I thought it was the oddest thing because both of those decisions didn't look like they were clinical decisions. And what I've been told is that most of these expectations that were set on companies and pro teams was that a proportion, a quota had to be met. And once a quota was met, then the obligation was fulfilled and they could drop the mandate. So people, I think, yeah, I think people were mandated by big companies according to this kind of what I call a perverse incentive or something that's just not right. It's not in the best health of people to take them. If you notice, nobody at these companies are taking responsibility for this. None of them are saying, it was my idea to do this. Even Houston Methodist in Texas felt so strongly about it, about these mandates, that they mandated all the workers, they fired workers that didn't do it. They even went to the Texas Supreme Court in 2021, and they prevailed. They prevailed that they could mandate all their workers to do it. And then inexplicably in 2022, they said, oh, we dropped the mandates. I thought this was so important a few months ago. Now you're dropping all the mandates. And what became known about the products is they were so dangerous. that the state of Texas had to step in and actually ban the mandates. They had to legislatively ban them because we couldn't mandate another worker in Texas to take one of these and lose their life.
Andres Preschel: Having gotten it in the arm, is that a liability nowadays?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: It's a health concern, and we have to sort through it and try to apply the data the best we can. So, one of the sources of data that I use is Schmeling and colleagues, Schmeling. And the second one is from the CDC V-safe data, V-safe 7 point, that's about 10 million people who took it, so that's a big data source. Then lastly, there's a recent Indian study A little different set of vaccines that they use there. But let me tell you, what we learned from these three studies is that there's about 5% to 10% of people we're worried about who took 5% to 10%. Now, that may seem like a low number to you, but let me tell you, in medicine, low is less than 1%. According to the cardiology guidelines, ACCHA guidelines, anything low of any type is less than 1%. Moderate is 1 to 5%, and high is over 5%. So by definition, the risk of these products is high. They're high risk. It's somewhere between 5 and 10%. So what do I mean by that? 5 to 10%, something serious. myocarditis, heart attack, cardiac arrest, heart arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, all of these well described, aortic dissection, brutal hypertension, HOTS, posterior orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which is a form of autonomic imbalance, Stroke, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, Guillain-Barre syndrome, small fiber neuropathy, hearing loss, I saw a patient with that this week, just totally lost all her hearing, just destroyed her. Seizures, we have a close family friend with intractable seizures now afterwards, it's been a disaster. Blood clots, blood clots like we've never seen before. I see blood clots on a daily basis in my practice now. Can arise even years afterwards. I do a detailed workup. A lot of people have the genetic predisposition towards blood clotting and then they've taken one of these products. Immunologic problems, the blood ANA, the anti-acetylated peptide rheumatoid factor can turn positive. When there's blood clots, we check the anti-cardiolipin antibody. And then when there's cutaneous or kidney manifestations, we check the ANCA antibody. There have been a variety of autoimmune syndromes that have been described, all based in the peer-reviewed literature. And then lastly, this fifth area of cancer is really, really worrisome. Remember, from the time there's the first sets of cancer cells in the body to the time it's detected is five years. That's the cancer horizon. for genetic products, and I testified in the U.S. House of Representatives on this, for genetic products, the timeline of concern is at least five years, maybe 15 years. And then a paper by Anguus and Bustos from the University of Oregon said, listen, these products can interfere with DNA repair. They have a DNA process-related impurities in them called SV40 or simian virus 40. Multiple papers show that. And then on top of that, the protein product itself can impair the p53 and BRCA tumor suppressor system. So, the multi-hit hypothesis of Sutherland and Baylor in 1984 has been fulfilled. these really could cause cancer. On top of everything else that we've mentioned, and every single cancer registry since they've been rolled out is up. Every single all-cause mortality registry is up. And so, you're right, we are concerned. Is it every single person who took them? No. The correct answer is it's somewhere between 5 and 10%. And our clinical challenge now is to figure out who these people are and what they should do to mitigate their risk.
Andres Preschel: And, you know, I would say that I think the general consensus since 2019, 2020, I think with what we've seen is a lot of people are more motivated than ever before to pursue healthy standards of living, you know, exercising, eating healthy. But for like the young, you know, athletes or folks that have become athletic as a result of what they saw, Who got it in the arm? Are they at a technically, is it, you know, is it even more of a liability now because they are putting themselves in a position where that might, where an event like that could happen? Myocarditis?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, a couple observations. Polycritus and myself have published that cardiac arrest during sports in European soccer leagues, that's up about tenfold. So, that's greatly concerning. Tenfold is 10x. Ten times. of cardiac arrest during play, pro, semi-pro, age under 35, 10X. The U.S. leagues, it's not so clear. And, you know, I wonder, by the time the U.S. leagues started, maybe there was enough messaging, maybe they had other ways of getting by. You know, it wasn't well known that Aaron Rodgers didn't take it. Right, it came out later on, so there may have been ways the agents negotiated with the teams. I'm hoping that a relatively small percentage actually took it. And then we had these notable cases like Novak Djokovic, you know, number one tennis player, says publicly, I'm not taking it. You know, Aaron Rodgers was public. I thought it was interesting that some of the best players said they weren't going to take it. And of course, we saw these notable cases, you know, I think the second best female golfer Nellie, I believe her name, she had a blood clot in her arm from it. Almost certainly, Damar Hamlin, almost certainly Buffalo Bills had a cardiac arrest. It wasn't commodio cordis. I was on national TV giving my analysis, and no, it looked like it was an iatrogenic cardiac arrest. And to this day, he won't admit to this, and his doctors have not admitted to it. They haven't denied it either. And so the Bills are very careful in not playing him. I think he played like five plays barely in pads. The risk of repeat arrest is too high. There is a prominent athlete at USC, Uwe Chuchu. He took it. He had a cardiac arrest. Now he is a defibrillator and he's playing. And a good one to have on your show, you should have John Stockton. former Utah jazz great, you know, shooting guard, point guard. He's keeping track of all the cases in the United States. He thinks we have about 1,000 athletes. Now, athletes could be at higher risk for myocarditis because of increased myocardial blood flow, which does, you know, double or more during exercise. And you can imagine, you know, in the days or weeks or months afterwards, because the genetic product is very long-lasting, And the S protein is very long-lasting. These things last for months in the body. The heart can keep taking it up over and over and over again and kind of build up. And of course, if there's multiple doses, it can even build up more. So athletes would be at risk for expressing the disease and then, of course, having the adrenaline trigger the cardiac arrest. However, athletes would be protected because they have more cardiac reserve. They could probably survive a cardiac arrest. And I think there's also another benefit that athletes have, and I wanted to mention it, Do you know it's now been shown that the genetic product is in breast milk? Two studies by Hannah show this. That means it's in sweat for sure. Brogan and colleagues showed it's in blood. Hannah showed us in breast milk. Well, if it's in sweat, guess what? Sweating is a good thing because one would actually help detoxify the body of the S protein. So I'm telling patients all the time, get in a sauna, get outside to exercise. I'm down in Texas. I'll wait till it gets hot today. I'll go out, exercise intentionally to just sweat. And then I'll cool off my body, I'll dive in the pool. And I think one of the reasons why athletes may turn out to be better off in the long run is the sweating, which has its own detoxification system.
Andres Preschel: Oh wow, so sauna and being outside has never been better. Interesting. And I know that you've written some papers and you've been featured in a few magazines and journals, diving deep into this base spike detoxification. So this is, just to be clear, this is what you're describing, right? Is one way that we can elicit base spike detoxification.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Right, yeah, so let's cover that. So it looks like all the syndromes of the long syndrome and all the symptoms of taking it in the arm are related to the S-protein. The S-protein is, it's about I think it's about 3,400 base pairs, codes for about 1,200 amino acids. It's got about a dozen or so glycosylated side chains. This protein is disease-causing for sure. It's been found in the brain, the heart, the blood vessel linings, bone marrow, the adrenals. It's just bad news. And the human body cannot break it down with this normal Proteases, it's almost similar to some of the proteins in Borrelia burgdorferi, which is the organism that causes Lyme, or similar to syphilis, it's not, syphilis, once the bug is in, it's not broken down easily. So there's something about this, it gets stuck in the body. And you get S protein through the infection, as well as taking it in the arm, both. Now taking it in the arm is probably many-fold higher concentration of S protein that we see in the human body. But what we've proposed in the two peer-reviewed publications we've demonstrated, that there is a scientific basis for what's now copyrighted McCulloch Protocol base detoxification, and this involves natural products. So this is right up your alley, natural products that have a proteolytic component to it. One is natokinase, derived from the fermentation of soy. Another is bromelain, which is a family of enzymes derived from the stems of pineapple, and then curcumin, which isn't proteolytic, but it's anti-inflammatory, derived from turmeric. So this is what we proposed, and these are starting doses. We've learned that the doses are low. We probably need to go higher, but I'll get them out there. Natokinase, 2,000 units, twice a day. Bromelain, 500 milligrams, once a day, in between meals, empty stomach. And then curcumin, 500 milligrams, twice a day, and that can be taken, you know, it doesn't matter when. And we add pepperine to the curcumin to enhance the absorption. So our initial protocol was a total of, let's say, for a natto, 4,000 units a day. The Chinese have published a study now at 10,000 units a day. I've talked to Jordan Vaughn, who's doing a leading protocol and research work at a center in Birmingham, Alabama. He's using 16,000 units a day of natto, so we know we're low on our dose. Duration is probably at least a year or more, but we are. We have thousands of patients under clinical observation. I've held worldwide calls on this. I'm convinced that it is helping people get through this. I can't make any therapeutic clinical, you know, claims because there are no large prospective double-blind placebo-controlled trials, but there aren't any planned And it takes 5 to 20 years to do these. So I think we're going to have to go with our clinical intuition. Thankfully, they're safe, widely available products. The only caveat is they do increase the chances of bleeding.
Andres Preschel: Noted. And is this something that you would recommend? Like who is this best fit for? And are there any repercussions that can come as a result of detoxifying the spike protein?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, I'm a good example. So I've had the infection three times. And on the third time, my ears started ringing. I noticed my exercise capacity went down a little bit. And I just felt like I've taken a hit, in a sense. And a lot of people feel like me in the country. So I'm taking it myself.
Andres Preschel: Yeah, I concur.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah, there we go. So you and I are the same. So I'm on it myself. I just took some this morning. And I'm now about six months into it. I think I'm just finally, the ear ringing is starting to simmer down. I was able to go out on some decent runs. I'll run later today. And I think I'm turning the corner. But I plan on going 12 months now. Of interest, the natokinase The Japanese and Chinese, you know, they do that long-term because it's anti-atherosclerotic. They've studied it in carotid atherosclerosis. It's mildly thrombolytic and proteolytic, so, you know, it helps reduce the chances of blood clotting. So, I don't have any side effects at all. I think I'm going to stick with it long-term just for its health benefits.
Andres Preschel: And are there other like lifestyle considerations that can work synergistically with a protocol like this one?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Mm-hmm I would say the additional supplements that you would have a base would be augmented N-acetylcysteine, some positive data there. Vitamin C as an aid in detoxification, I think, you know, certainly well supported. We have one paper on sereptase, another, an enzyme that potentially is beneficial. Lutein, we have another paper on that. Antioxidant, that's an extra virgin olive oil. So it's interesting that the naturopathic world looks like it's going to fulfill that void on detoxification. I haven't found too many prescription drugs that really help very well on this. For the non-supplement and drug interventions, the best data is for hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Hyperbaric oxygen. So have you ever done that yourself?
Andres Preschel: I have, yeah. Yeah, for sure.
Andres Preschel: One of my buddies, Dr. Jason Saunders, he's a subject matter expert in HBOT, hyperbaric oxygen therapy. I haven't spoken to him specifically about something like this, but he has mentioned how to derive the major benefits of HBOT, you want to do several sessions. So I think it's something like 20 sessions to have the best effect overall. I mean, I'm sure there's some kind of acute response, acute benefit to just any session regardless of how many atmospheres of pressure you're under. But it seems like the best outcomes are over a period of time. Have you seen that with these specific considerations?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah, I'm glad you led with that so we can independently corroborate that. The Swedish have a protocol, it's called the SOS protocol, a minimum of six sessions, and then the Israelis have done as much as, I think, 44 sessions. So it's somewhere in there. My clinical judgment is about 20 sessions. And what we're talking about is you and I are breathing 21% oxygen at one atmosphere pressure. Hyperbaric, you go into a chamber, typically for 90 minutes, and it's 100% oxygen at two to three atmospheres of pressure. It's FDA approved to heal diabetic foot wounds, but now there's enough data in concussive injuries, whole variety of other soft tissue injuries, the pulmonary syndromes, and I did a case study with Dr. Al Johnson in Dallas, who's one of my patients. One of the first times I saw this, bronchiolitis obliterans really clear up with hyperbaric oxygen, so now I make referrals every week for this. I tell patients it's going to take some time, but it makes sense to me that it can't all be oral drugs and supplements, right? There needs to be something in the physical realm. We've already covered sauna and sweating, I think hyperbaric oxygen plays a role. People are exploring red light therapy, you know, other things that can help. I'm not an expert in that, but there's enough randomized trial data in hyperbaric to really give it a full-throated endorsement. I think anybody here suffering from the long syndrome or who's taken it in the arm and they've had these residual symptoms, strongly consider hyperbaric. You'll have to pay out of pocket for it. And in general, the hard shells or the hard submarine tanks are better than the soft shells. But I think they really ought to consider it. It's something you can do on your own in addition to McCulloch protocol-based spike protein dock detoxification. You can do that. Just buy that anywhere. on the internet. You'll see that, by the way, you know it's a successful protocol. You go on Amazon, so many manufacturers have created the trios that you can buy from a whole bunch because they know it works. And you know what's interesting, Andrew? When I first published this and I put it out on Instagram, immediately it was censored. And the censorship said, this doesn't work. So wait, wait a minute. How do they know it's not going to work? We're just proposing to give it a try.
Andres Preschel: Yeah, wow. And are there key words people should look at when they try to get this on Amazon, for example? Is your product or your protocol anything to do with that on Amazon?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Yeah, so while this company has their ultimate spike detox McCullough protocol on Amazon, multiple companies have emulated it. I've copyrighted it, but not patented. I don't drive any revenue from sales of any of this. I just want people to get it and kind of get the right combination that we've published, and multiple companies are doing that, I think it's perfectly fine. Our clinic has got a wonderful product. Our clinic has one, it's called BSD, the base S-protein detoxification. There, we have it actually in a single capsule. So people say, listen, I just don't want to buy three things, just give me one thing to take, and so I think that's, you know, been great.
Andres Preschel: Wow. I mean, this is absolutely fascinating. I know that we're running short on time. I mean, I think we've covered pretty much everything that I was hoping to cover, at least. But Dr. McCullough, is there anything else that you want to make sure you absolutely mention while we're here today for the folks that are tuning in, just so that they can have, you know, hopefully a more positive outlook on the future? You know, the past few years have been so stressful, so traumatic. And look, this isn't going to be the end, right? There's going to be another situation, I'm sure, moving forward. And I hope that we're more prepared and more responsible. So maybe if you could leave us with a few, yeah, some insight, wisdom, and words of advice.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Well, let's just cover one quick topic, and that's avian influenza, or highly pathogenic avian influenza called bird flu. And unfortunately, the report here is not good. Go to McCullough Foundation. You see this on the social media and on the internet. We've done all the research on this. This looks like it's gain-of-function research. Major players include Dr. Ron Fauchier at the Netherlands. Dr. Hoshiro Marikawa, I believe, from UNC Wisconsin, and the U.S. Poultry Research Lab in Athens, Georgia. It looks like they were experimenting on this, trying to make it more virulent, get into mallard ducks. It for sure is in mallard ducks. The mallard ducks are flying all over. And so we actually have an outbreak of bird flu in the United States and all over the world. Our agencies are not telling us how it's spreading, but I'll tell you, it's spread by migratory waterfall. They're landing in farms in Texas and in Iowa and Michigan, and they're spreading the bird flu. And so now federal agents are coming on people's property and hazmat suits, doing PCR testing. God knows how many false positives they're raising. And unfortunately, when they declare a case of bird flu, The action by the agriculture director is to destroy the entire flock. It's called culling. So, I'm greatly concerned that this is an overreaction. There's three human cases so far. They're all mild. Two of them just were pink eye. There's no human-to-human spread yet, although I think the gain-of-function research by UNC Wisconsin and Rotterdam, the Netherlands is probably going to have human-to-human spread, but we're ready. Everybody should be ready with the iodine. nasal sprays and gargles. We also have wellness companies got a contagion kit that prepares people with some antivirals that have good activity against it. But I think what I see on the horizon is disease X, which is bird flu. There's an objective for mass administration. Again, CSL has a mass product for taking it in the arm Pfizer, Moderna are negotiating with the U.S. government. Now, there's already been pre-purchased for every American to take one of these. CSL, the company, already has one pre-approved. By the way, it's never been tested in humans, because there's not enough human cases. But it already has a pre-approved product, and then it has a self-replicating genetic product in the future. So does SAPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation with the Koreans, a self-replicating genetic product. Before you know it, we're going to be confronted with something that doesn't represent much of a human threat at all and a lot of unnecessary destruction of livestock and cattle. probably actually a constraint on the food supply, and then a proposal that we all take it in the arm for bird flu. I think I want everyone to be prepared for this. I think this is all inadvisable. We should let the animals get through this, get natural immunity, stop all the gain-of-function research, and we should decline any of these administrations, and simple nasal sprays and gargles and drugs will get us through this. So we have bird flu coming up. I want people to, unfortunately, it's something we just need to be completely educated on so we don't get fooled. I think a lot of people got fooled into taking these last time, and they're not going to take anymore.
Andres Preschel: Incredible. Yeah, thank you so much. And yeah, I mean, what's your overall outlook on the future now that we are getting our hands on some of this information and just seeing more of this truth coming to light? I mean, are you generally optimistic? It seems like you are, but I want to hear from you directly. Are you generally optimistic and you think we should be optimistic?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: You know, I've been busy coming up with solutions. We're not seeing our government officials come up with solutions or even the orthodoxy in academia. There's nobody at Harvard stepping out saying, listen, we should do this or that. If you notice, the major academic institutions are hiding in the shadows. They're not on national TV. They're not giving useful podcasts or anything. And yet the public is being confronted with, we've already been confronted with the original pandemic, with monkeypox, and now bird flu. You can see it's a series. And CEPI, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation, founded by Gates Foundation or World Economic Forum, they said there will be a series of these And in each time, there'll be only one response, and that is a novel genetic product that we take in the arm. It's a business plan. So we have to see that a business plan is being played out. We've also seen widespread corruption sweep into business, into medicine, law, and into government, all walks of life. And then also deception. We're told that things are going on all over the world, but there's no embedded reporting giving us any detail of what's going on all over the world now. So we're in some type of very special time. It is the time of independent media like your show. We're anxiously awaiting Missouri versus Biden, which is a Supreme Court case, which I think they're going to decide in favor of Biden. Biden administration wants to formally censor social media. They want government agents in social media censoring what message people get in social media. Now, the Supreme Court typically couches their decision. They'll probably say, well, in the setting of national and public health emergencies, of which, you know, we'll have all these declared, so it's going to be game on for censorship. The real question, Andrus, is what are you going to do as an independent media podcaster? What are you going to do when the federal agents come knocking on, you know, at your door?
Andres Preschel: I have no clue. What do you recommend?
Dr Peter A. McCullough: It's going to be interesting times. And all I can tell you is, listen, I have a podcast myself, McCullough Report. It's on an independent platform, America Out Loud. I have Courageous Discourse, Substack. I don't harbor any secrets. I simply do the analysis. I do the publications. If people want to confiscate my computer, my cell phone, go ahead. I just think a secret list society would be better off. So much of everything we see, Freedom of Information Act and all these probes and investigations, it's all because of secrecy. People are trying to keep secrets, and then those secrets become an area of inquiry. If you don't have anything to hide, You don't have anything to hide. Do you remember those James Bond movies and Mission Impossible and Avengers movies? Years ago, they used to be after like a little box of gold or money, what have you. And then over time, the objective was a coveted USB drive with information on it. You know, that was the thing that they were after. Right? So it's always about secrecy or something held that's of value. And I think if we just kind of give up all the secrecy and said, listen, just like your podcast, let's just talk about the issues. I think we should be okay. So you and I have been careful through this one to try to not hit any of the censorship words, but we shouldn't even have to do that. We should have a frank discussion, use any words that we want to. This reminds me a little bit of the years leading up to Nazi Germany, where people actually did have to start to curtail their discussions because of sweeping censorship and propaganda that came in.
Andres Preschel: Yeah, that hits home.
Andres Preschel: Yeah. Well, Dr. McCullough, it's been such an honor and pleasure.
Andres Preschel: Thank you so much.
Dr Peter A. McCullough: Thank you. Let me just give you a couple points to follow me. So go to my website, petermcullohmd.com. That'll take you everywhere. Subscribe to Courageous Discourse Substack. It's the number one medical substack, 90% of the content's free. Go to America Out Loud Talk Radio, McCulloh Report. Gotta get on that every Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. Eastern on the Apple iHeart Podcast Network. After that, my book, Courage to Face, It's a best-selling book in this whole genre. It's written by John Leake, who's a best-selling author. Let me tell you, if you're ever going to write a book, work with a pro, because it really reads. It's a fun read. It's very, very enlightening. follow me on social media. I got the top doctor Twitter account. I have over a million followers, and that's with tremendous censorship and unsubscribed programs run against me. So my reach is probably, in terms of people who really hear me every day, is probably in the tens of millions. And And I garner that type of attention because, like with you, I've brought the truth. I've cited the data. And by the way, I've noticed you've done a good job citing the data. And when we have high quality review and we cite the information, that's where people learn. I'm Dr. Peter McCullough. Again, thank you so much for having me on the program.
Andres Preschel: Honor and pleasure. Thank you so much. See you. Okay. Be good. So that's all for today's show. Thank you so much for tuning in today. For all of the show notes, including clickable links to anything and everything that we discussed today, everything from discount codes to videos, to research articles, books, tips, tricks, techniques, and of course, to learn more about the guest on today's episode, all you have to do is head to my website, AndresPreschel.com. That's A-N-D-R-E-S-P-R-E-S-C-H-E-L.com. and go to podcasts. You can also leave your feedback, questions, and suggestions for future episodes, future guests, so on and so forth. Thanks again for tuning in and I'll see you on the next one. Have a lovely rest of your day.