The Joe Rogan Experience - Dr. Peter A. McCullough

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
for those who are open minded on this thread, please consider that what McCullough says has been debunked:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcIbVvHI2c

I watched the first 30 minutes. He criticizes McCullough but by no means is he a Covidian. He has been very critical of Covid orthodoxy himself.

It also sounds like he’s not really debunking McCullough so much as criticizing some of his arguments while agreeing with others.
 

MOUNTAINBEAR

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
51
I watched the first 30 minutes. He criticizes McCullough but by no means is he a Covidian. He has been very critical of Covid orthodoxy himself.

It also sounds like he’s not really debunking McCullough so much as criticizing some of his arguments while agreeing with others.
Yes! Although he does debunk some of the claims. McCullough is a respected doctor but not a virologist/epidemiologist, so I wouldn't take his advice as seriously. But hey good on you to give it a go. FYI for total transparency I'm following the peat diet and love Haidut's supplements but I was more than happy to take the mRNA vaccine. I'm baffled by Peat's stance on this. Be safe out there
 

PhilParma

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2015
Messages
543
Location
Minnesota
It also sounds like he’s not really debunking McCullough so much as criticizing some of his arguments while agreeing with others.
"Debunk" has basically become a self-serving way of saying "counterargue." It's like saying "I'm right" before even presenting your argument, assuming you even have an argument and aren't just spouting personal attacks and logical fallacies, as people who use the word "debunk" have a tendency to do.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
but I was more than happy to take the mRNA vaccine. I'm baffled by Peat's stance on this.
What is there to be "baffled" by? Maybe you are more than happy to be a test subject signing a terrible contract with proven corporate criminals like Pfizer, but I don't know why you would think Peat should do the same.

Peat has suggested for years that you should wait at least 20 years after a drug is introduced to the public before you take it, as it takes at least that long to know all the long term side effects. So, any criticisms by him of any of the so called "vaccines" is completely in line with this view.

I would think extra caution would be warranted in the case of the mRNA drugs, as they have NEVER been available previously, and regardless of any dodgy "approval" of the Pfizer "vaccine," still haven't completed the normal clinical trials that would be necessary for the approval of ANY drug. And with Pfizer and Moderna both eliminating their placebo group at the six month mark, it will be at least 3-5 years from THIS point in time before even that milestone can be accomplished.

The incredibly poor track record of mRNA drugs, and the failure of Moderna to get even a single mRNA drug approved, despite 90 or so tries over the past decade, should have given you serious pause. The fact that all these so called "vaccines" have a pathetic 1.3% Absolute Risk Reduction or less in all of their 2 month interim data should have as well. And the only "benefit" even tested for was a reduction of mild cases of Covid. No reduction in "serious" cases, hospitalizations, or death was even tested for. I would take a mild cold over experimental drugs any day.

Considering Covid itself is a mild common cold virrus, if it's anything, I'm not sure why anyone is "happy" to take any of these drugs.
 

YourUniverse

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
2,034
Location
your mind, rent free
Peat has suggested for years that you should wait at least 20 years after a drug is introduced to the public before you take it, as it takes at least that long to know all the long term side effects. So, any criticisms by him of any of the so called "vaccines" is completely in line with this view.
Actually, in his most recent interview w/ Danny Roddy, he suggested at least 50 years, as some effects are trans generational
 

MOUNTAINBEAR

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Messages
51
What is there to be "baffled" by? Maybe you are more than happy to be a test subject signing a terrible contract with proven corporate criminals like Pfizer, but I don't know why you would think Peat should do the same.

Peat has suggested for years that you should wait at least 20 years after a drug is introduced to the public before you take it, as it takes at least that long to know all the long term side effects. So, any criticisms by him of any of the so called "vaccines" is completely in line with this view.

I would think extra caution would be warranted in the case of the mRNA drugs, as they have NEVER been available previously, and regardless of any dodgy "approval" of the Pfizer "vaccine," still haven't completed the normal clinical trials that would be necessary for the approval of ANY drug. And with Pfizer and Moderna both eliminating their placebo group at the six month mark, it will be at least 3-5 years from THIS point in time before even that milestone can be accomplished.

The incredibly poor track record of mRNA drugs, and the failure of Moderna to get even a single mRNA drug approved, despite 90 or so tries over the past decade, should have given you serious pause. The fact that all these so called "vaccines" have a pathetic 1.3% Absolute Risk Reduction or less in all of their 2 month interim data should have as well. And the only "benefit" even tested for was a reduction of mild cases of Covid. No reduction in "serious" cases, hospitalizations, or death was even tested for. I would take a mild cold over experimental drugs any day.

Considering Covid itself is a mild common cold virrus, if it's anything, I'm not sure why anyone is "happy" to take any of these drugs.
lol, ok same place same time in 3 years and we exchange notes?
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
lol, ok same place same time in 3 years and we exchange notes?
What notes are we going to exchange? Are you aware of a NEW study with these mRNA drugs with a placebo group that isn't tainted, whose results we can discuss?

We still won't have 20 (or 50) year safety data at that time.

I'm curious as to why you were "happy" to take the mRNA shot. I can't think of a single good reason myself. What were yours?
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
for those who are open minded on this thread, please consider that what McCullough says has been debunked:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pcIbVvHI2c

Glad he's honest about his biases, but I can't take him seriously as he presents as very biased given his attachment to the orthodox medical establishment and its ways of using very high burden of proofs. If you're asking people to be open-minded, then consider that this doctor is very close-minded already just on that his attitude towards therapeutics (which I gather to mean non-vaccine solutions) that did not get through RCTs. His sole reliance on RCTs as acceptable proof betrays a very toxic bias that closes all other treatments that by other measures meets the burden of proof. He is an establishment shill, but his glib talk to come across as earnest in his approach can certainly endear him to many gullible people.
 

sunny

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
886
In one of the interviews Dr McCullough talks about his early treatment protocol (having trouble finding it). One of the things was nasal iodine reducing virus. I need to have some on hand for the possibility of having to do testing for work in the future. What is the opinion on colorless iodine such as this one on amazon? Amazon product ASIN B07TQKKGJ1View: https://www.amazon.com/Codeage-Organic-Nascent-Iodine-Supplement/dp/B07TQKKGJ1/ref=sr_1_15?crid=3PWHB1I97N9JY&keywords=colorless+iodine&qid=1640122326&sprefix=colorless+iod%2Caps%2C282&sr=8-15
 

Mauritio

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
5,669
vaxxed and hospitalized mortality rate ~6%, unvaxxed and hospitalized mortality ~8% - “not statistically significant.”
Anybody knows which study he's talking about ?

So people take an experimental gen therapy for 2% reduction in mortality! That is mean mortality btw.
So for people over 70 it's probably a reduction of 8% or so,but for people under 30 the reduction in mortality has to be a lot less, maybe around 0.5%.
 

mayku-T-meelo

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
188
You lost me at "Considering Covid itself is a mild common cold virus, if it's anything". I can't take you seriously anymore.
The data is here but let me guess you don't believe it: Excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) - Statistics and Research
Well, you're going to have some excess mortality, if you basically put the whole world into a prison lockdown, stop the economy, use unsound medical protocols, overdose people on previously unapproved drugs, ventilate them to death and so on and so on. It doesn't prove there is a killer virus out there. Have you thought about that? Point being that from the very start there was no real data to support the narrative, except for questionable tests that are flawed in various ways (this was pointed out multiple times with no decent response from authorities) and ongoing blatant fearmongering about asymptomatic spread, which doesn't make any sense in the case of respiratory viral disease.

Analysis of all-cause mortality by week in Canada 2010-2021, by province, age and sex: There was no COVID-19 pandemic, and there is strong evidence of response-caused deaths in the most elderly and in young males

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom