Quote:

---

Peter McCullough

---

01agtx said:

---

As a nurse, it will never sit right with me that we sent sick people home from the ER without medicine and told them to come back when they are worse.

---

It's what we do for almost every viral respiratory illness in existence.

But as a nurse, you already knew that

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

01agtx said:

---

As a nurse, it will never sit right with me that we sent sick people home from the ER without medicine and told them to come back when they are worse.

---

It's what we do for almost every viral respiratory illness in existence.

But as a nurse, you already knew that

---

Not when we have medications to send them home with...but I'm sure you already knew that.

Sandman98 said:

---

Can we talk about the claim that 4,000 people have died FROM the vaccine?

---

It's a completely unsubstantiated claim that commits the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In relies on the fact that most will grant causal effect to a temporal relationship.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sandman98 said:

---

Can we talk about the claim that 4,000 people have died FROM the vaccine?

---

It's a completely unsubstantiated claim that commits the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In relies on the fact that most will grant causal effect to a temporal relationship.

---

You mean like the COVID death count?

01agtx said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

01agtx said:

---

As a nurse, it will never sit right with me that we sent sick people home from the ER without medicine and told them to come back when they are worse.

---

It's what we do for almost every viral respiratory illness in existence.

But as a nurse, you already knew that

---

Not when we have medications to send them home with.

---

But we don't (for the type of patient you're describing at least), that's the point. Bamlanivimab can be given to patients at high risk of progression to severe disease to attempt to keep them out of the hospital, but otherwise low risk patients who aren't hypoxic are almost all going to get better and in the same amount of time no matter what you do.

I'm as medically justified giving oseltamivir or ribavirin to a COVID19 patient as I am HCQ or ivermectin. I don't treat patients based on my desire to project a medication as effective. I give people things for which strong evidence of benefit exists, and for which that benefit outweighs any demonstrable and meaningful potential harm.

HCQ failed numerous large trials attempting to show benefit. It was given more opportunity to prove itself than it ever should have been, as trial were continuing long after all hope of its supposed benefit was debunked. Ivermectin has mixed data based on a bunch of small, poorly designed, underpowered studies. The problem with ivermectin is that the in vitro concentration required to demonstrate any potential SARSCoV activity is an order of magnitude higher than what can be achieved in vivo even with doses much higher than what is approved for humans.

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sandman98 said:

---

Can we talk about the claim that 4,000 people have died FROM the vaccine?

---

It's a completely unsubstantiated claim that commits the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In relies on the fact that most will grant causal effect to a temporal relationship.

---

You mean like the COVID death count?

---

No

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sandman98 said:

---

Can we talk about the claim that 4,000 people have died FROM the vaccine?

---

It's a completely unsubstantiated claim that commits the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In relies on the fact that most will grant causal effect to a temporal relationship.

---

You mean like the COVID death count?

---

No

---

Well, its just like the covid death count, no different.

Picadillo said:

---

VAERS is a voluntary system so there will also be the unreported figures. So not a true barometer, but an indicator something is amiss. Used to be if over 50 deaths a vaccine was pulled off the market. No way of knowing then if the vaccine caused the death, but the product was still pulled.

I think the good doctor is pointing out this inconsistency.

Of perhaps more relevance is the number of VAERS reported serious injuries, which last time I looked was somewhere 14,000 to 20,000, more than prior 20 years all vaccines combined. And of these, the language is "most commonly reported" which means perhaps some are missed.

---

There are literally online movements to attempt to spam the system with fake adverse events. That's not the case with other vaccinations.

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

HowdyTexasAggies said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Sandman98 said:

---

Can we talk about the claim that 4,000 people have died FROM the vaccine?

---

It's a completely unsubstantiated claim that commits the classic correlation = causation fallacy. In relies on the fact that most will grant causal effect to a temporal relationship.

---

You mean like the COVID death count?

---

No

---

Well, its just like the covid death count, no different.

---

It's not

nawlinsag said:

---

The US avgs 869.7 deaths/yr per 100,000 people. That is 2.38 deaths a day/ per 100,000.

The US has vaccinated fully 135,000,000 people. So it is expected of those 135,000,000 people 3,213 will die every day.

Without going into the older age groups of those getting vaccinated, which vaccine (# of injections), time of year that influences death rates in populations, or other confounding factors. It appears the numbers he quotes regarding death within 3 days of a covid vaccine injection is below the expected.

---

I had this much patience once

God bless you

Gaming of the HCQ trials is what Dr McC is talking about. These early trials that were designed to fail have fooled a lot of our doctors.

Typical hallmarks of the phony studies include:

- HCQ given late when the patient was well into hospitalization. Deliberate design.

- toxic doses of HCQ

- HCQ dispensed without zinc or an antibiotic. Again, all designed to fail.

These were the most common.

When given early immediately following positive test, with zinc and an antibiotic, the results are dramatic. Throw in ivermectin, which can be taken with HCQ, and the results are even better.

Dr McCullough in the interview says it takes a combination of drugs to defeat Covid.

Picadillo said:

---

Gaming of the HCQ trials is what Dr McC is talking about. These early trials that were designed to fail have fooled a lot of our doctors.

Typical hallmarks of the phony studies include:

- HCQ given late when the patient was well into hospitalization. Deliberate design.

- toxic doses of HCQ

- HCQ dispensed without zinc or an antibiotic. Again, all designed to fail.

These were the most common.

When given early immediately following positive test, with zinc and an antibiotic, the results are dramatic. Throw in ivermectin, which can be taken with HCQ, and the results are even better.

Dr McCullough in the interview says it takes a combination of drugs to defeat Covid.

---

For even just a moment have you ever stopped and thought about the arrogance required to say the vast majority of the best and brightest physicians in the world, and hundreds of thousands of specialists with an exponentially better understanding of the relevant medical fields than you, were duped while you and a bunch of other Google sleuths figured it out? Really? Have you ever wondered why the physicians and scientist pushing these therapies were one, rarely specialists in the relevant fields and two, almost to a man heavily connected with (and often paid by) think tanks explicitly attempting to push a given narrative about them? You've thrown in your lot with literal African witch doctors, physicians whose licenses were revoked for a variety of reasons, one legitimate pedophile, and an army of anti-vaxxers and homeopaths?

With all of your brilliance, NONE of that sounded any alarms for?

Let's call this what it is: Confirmation bias. You have a narrative you wish to push, and you have a conclusion you want to be true. And you pick and choose poorly designed studies, small studies, side with people whose character and motives are immediately called into question with a simple internet search, constantly moving the goalposts, etc. all to support this conclusion. Meanwhile ignoring the MOUNTAIN of evidence compiled against the effectiveness of HCQ.

Getting specifically into your claims, they are all just wrong. HCQ has been tested in every way that you've asked it to be, despite there being NO REASON to do so. Medicine went above and beyond, conducting new studies every time you moved the goalposts. "Oh it wasn't given early enough, oh it wasn't given with azithromycin" and on and one. And despite the complaints coming largely from people who couldn't even spell these medications correctly without liking them up let alone even understanding what they do or their mechanism of action, every time new studies were done. And the well designed large scale retrospective and randomized controlled trials continued to show no meaningful benefit.

For example, here's a very good randomized controlled three arm trial from comparing HCQ + azithromycin to HCQ to placebo with great end points.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00053-5/fulltext

No benefit. A very similar Australian study even added zinc, no benefit.

You see, it is YOU who has been duped b charlatans. Not those of us who spent years learning and training for this, both to understand medicine and how to assess medical literature. All of your poorly designed studies are designed specifically to get some semblance of a headline that can be construed as the drugs working. And because those they are attempting to dupe largely do not understand statistics and how they can be so easily fooled by them, they fall for it. Some of the end points in these silly trials are a farce. Some are woefully underpowered. Some don't even actually show what they claim to show and they just hope you won't dice too deep to notice. The great majority, if published at all, are published in small and often less than reputable journals. And again, for the one hundredth time, ANY CAN DESIGN A STUDY TO SHOW BENEFIT ON AN OUTPATIENT BASIS FOR A DISEASE WITH OVERALL LOW MORTALITY. This is because almost everyone in this population will get better no matter what you do. You want to know why the goalposts kept moving to milder and milder disease? Because eventually it becomes very easy to manipulate a study design to show benefit in such a disease. It's why it took so long and so many patients to show even a modest benefit for Tamiflu in outpatient influenza, and that data is exponentially stronger than anything ever produced for HCQ.

So no, it is not me who has been tricked. Not the one with 15 years of very specific knowledge and training accumulated in the two most relevant fields in question. Not the one who has combed through the literature for 18 months hoping treatments would come available based on quality evidence. Not the one who has watched hundreds of patients go through this and become painfully knowledgeable of the disease process. No, it is you who has been duped by opportunistic frauds, quackery and just downright bad medicine.

And one last thing: You entire conspiracy theory about me and the medical establishment has a two fundamental flaws in that MANY of us voted for Trump (myself included) and we figured out steroids work really well for certain covid patients. Donald Trump touted steroids, they are cheap, they are widely available, and yet we're using them. Why? Because the data shows they work. We should be shunning them just as we are HCQ but we aren't. I'd love it if HCQ worked, it just doesn't.

I'm happy to assess any studies you'd like discussed, I've probably already read literally all of them. You know, because it's my ******* job to know this stuff. I'll be happy to point out the fatal flaws, as I have so many times here only to be ignored.

Wow, that right there is one of the best ownages I've ever read here. Congrats sir.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Windy City Ag said:

---

The AAPS did show it ass multiple times as nakedly partisan and politically motivated and the fact that this guy belongs to that organization does give me pause. That being said, he knows a whole lot more about medical issues than i do so I defer to his expertise.

---

Sounds like AAPS is a group of conservative doctors. Sounds like they are openly political. So? Why should a the fact that a doctor is conservative have any weight at all on the reliability of his medical expertise?

---

It's not that the doctors in it are conservative, it's that it's a political action committee POSING as a medical association. It's entire purpose is to push conservative narratives in medicine, which means they inevitably will have predetermined conclusions and look for evidence to fit those conclusions. It's the same fatal flaw with creationist think thanks that pose as legitimate scientific organizations, they exist only to produce things that they believe help refute evolution.

When your organization would cease to exist by necessity if your theories and hypothesis end up being wrong, you are not a legitimate medical organization.

I'm a Trump voting conservative physician, but I don't walk through life with predetermined conclusions about reality. I can't afford to.

Quote:

---

For even just a moment have you ever stopped and thought about the arrogance required to say the vast majority of the best and brightest physicians in the world, and hundreds of thousands of specialists with an exponentially better understanding of the relevant medical fields than you, were duped while you and a bunch of other Google sleuths figured it out? Really? Have you ever wondered why the physicians and scientist pushing these therapies were one, rarely specialists in the relevant fields and two, almost to a man heavily connected with (and often paid by) think tanks explicitly attempting to push a given narrative about them? You've thrown in your lot with literal African witch doctors, physicians whose licenses were revoked for a variety of reasons, one legitimate pedophile, and an army of anti-vaxxers and homeopaths?

With all of your brilliance, NONE of that sounded any alarms for?

---

Come on, man . . .they literally watch youtube channels every day. Than has to count for something.

Are you not aware of The Lancet article deliberately lying about HCQ and having to retract their report last year? The misuse of HCQ in studies was commonplace last year. Dr McCullough even states such in the interview. Suggest listen to the interview or read up a bit and get current.

Picadillo said:

---

Are you not aware of The Lancet article deliberately lying about HCQ and having to retract their report last year?

---

I am, the study was withdrawn because the company that provided data would not provide full access to the information for a third-party peer review. This was after questions were raised by several government agencies, most notably in Australia, saying the published data didn't line up with government records. It was a bad look, but the fact is the only flaws in the data were related to the dangers of the drug and not efficacy.

Quote:

---

The misuse of HCQ in studies was commonplace last year

---

This is incorrect, the fact that the goalposts were moved every time a study showed no benefit doesn't mean the studies were intentionally manipulated to provide a given result. On the contrary, this was far more often the case in the poor trial showing any benefit which were often designed or the end points manipulated to generate the perception of benefit.

Quote:

---

Dr McCullough even states such in the interview. Suggest listen to the interview or read up a bit and get current.

---

I've watched every significant interview he has given, and I assure you I've forgotten more about infectious diseases, vaccines, epidemiology and COVID19 than he'll ever know. He's a cardiologist, and much of what he says about the fields being discussed are on the level of a med student, which is expected. I wouldn't attempt to refute him on in depth topics surrounding cardiology.

Again, I've spent the last 18 months combing through this stuff. I'm happy to address any studies you'd like me to because, as I've said, I've probably already looked at them.

Picadillo said:

---

Great. Use your best clinical judgement. But don't trash what is now a proven early treatment, HCQ and/or Ivermectin with zinc and an antibiotic. This is the central point of the interview.

As for me and my family, glad to have a doc that has the courage to Rx HCQ+zinc as prophylaxis for the past year and a half. Not even a cold for any of us, despite numerous exposures.

---

Reading is hard. He's not trashing it, the numerous studies have. Believe what you want to believe dude, but to give this guy hell because you believe what another person says, is just ignorant. To call him out to "get current," when you probably have googled a few things that are tailored to reaffirm your position, also ignorant.

Quote:

---

But don't trash what is now a proven early treatment, HCQ and/or Ivermectin with zinc and an antibiotic. This is the central point of the interview.

---

And my "central point" is that this is incorrect, it is NOT a "proven treatment". It's not only decidedly unproven, there is extensive evidence against its efficacy.

Quote:

---

As for me and my family, glad to have a doc that has the courage to Rx HCQ+zinc as prophylaxis for the past year and a half. Not even a cold for any of us, despite numerous exposures.

---

Has he discussed with you any of the complications of chronic hydroxychloroquine use? Is he checking CBCs at least somewhat regularly to monitor for the cumulative dose effect on potential BM suppression? Is he also recommending copper supplementation to offset the copper depletion that frequently comes with chronic oral zinc use? Has he explained zinc supplements also decrease the effect of many other medications if you take them together? Has he told you that the vast majority of western diets already provide far more zinc than you'd ever need in the setting of the theoretical HCQ ionophore mechanism? I suspect the answer to at least most of these questions is no. I also suspect this physician, assuming he's not a rheumatologist, has probably not prescribed HCQ prior to pandemic since residency (so never as an independent practitioner). So your thanks may be misplaced.

But regardless, the fact that your family hasn't gotten sick on these medications is a completely meaningless metric by which to assess efficacy. It's like saying I haven't been struck by lightening while wearing a hat, therefore hats prevent being struck by lightening.

Picadillo said:

---

Great. Use your best clinical judgement. But don't trash what is now a proven early treatment, HCQ and/or Ivermectin with zinc and an antibiotic. This is the central point of the interview.

As for me and my family, glad to have a doc that has the courage to Rx HCQ+zinc as prophylaxis for the past year and a half. Not even a cold for any of us, despite numerous exposures.

---

I am glad you and your family have been well.

How long are you going to keep taking HCQ?

How do you think what your doctor is doing is courageous?

Picadillo said:

---

Courage? Listen to Dr McCullough. He talks about the doctors whose licenses were threatened. Pharmacists conspired to not fill prescriptions. So yes, he speaks directly about courage. Listen to the interview.

---

Licenses threatened? Wow. I had no idea. I've got goose bumps.

I mean - when I think of courage, I think of Omaha Beach. First responders. Stage IV. Hitting a 4 iron into 15 at Augusta on Sunday with a 2 stroke lead. Okay - maybe the last one is questionable. Maybe.

But fair enough. Good on your doc. I hope he keeps on scribbling (illegibly of course) those scrips!

What a dumb comment.

Quote:

---

I'll be happy to point out the fatal flaws, as I have so many times here only to be ignored.

---

You are not ignored by all. For every YouTube "expert" that argues with you on here, there's many of us who read and appreciate what you docs have to say. It's nice to year answers straight from the minds of actual experts without media interpreation. Thanks for taking the time to shed light on things for us non-medical folks.

I went to a smallish dinner this weekend where Dr. McCullough spoke for several hours. He has been treating patients throughout the pandemic. Calling him a looney says more about the poster than it does Dr. McCullough.