Home » Vaccine Fact Check » Did a Highly Cited Doctor Say That the Government is Scrubbing COVID Vaccine Deaths?

Did a Highly Cited Doctor Say That the Government is Scrubbing COVID Vaccine Deaths?

Why do some people think that a “highly cited COVID doctor” has uncovered some plot by the government to hide COVID vaccine deaths?

It might be time to question where your career is headed if Sherri Tenpenny thinks you are one of the "world's most prominent medical doctors"...
It might be time to question where your career is headed if Sherri Tenpenny thinks you are one of the “world’s most prominent medical doctors”…

The usual suspects…

Did a Highly Cited Doctor Say That the Government is Scrubbing COVID Vaccine Deaths?

As you have likely suspected, there is a lot wrong with these claims though.

“One of the world’s most prominent medical doctors with expertise in treating COVID-19 has gone on the record with a scathing rebuke of the U.S. government’s approach to fighting the virus.”

Highly cited COVID doctor comes to stunning conclusion: Gov’t ‘scrubbing unprecedented numbers’ of injection-related deaths

Who is this “highly cited” COVID doctor?

A “highly cited” COVID doctor whose own replies and articles make up many of the citations for his article outlining his rationale for the outpatient treatment for COVID-19 infections? A treatment guideline that actually received very few citations?

In addition to his own citations, many others were folks calling his treatment algorithm dangerous!
In addition to his own citations, many others were folks calling his treatment algorithm dangerous!

Is he really “one of the world’s most prominent medical doctors with expertise in treating COVID-19?”

Uh, no, he’s not.

The doctor in question is Peter McCullough, a cardiologist without any special infectious disease training or expertise in vaccines.

A cardiologist who throughout the pandemic had been pushing a cocktail approach to treating COVID-19, with monoclonal antibodies, zinc, vitamin D, vitamin C, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectim, azithromycin, doxycycline, inhaled budesonide, prednisone, colchicine, and aspirin, etc.

A cocktail approach that has been shown to be ineffective, except for the use of monoclonal antibodies.

And now, apparently, Peter McCullough has moved on to talking about COVID vaccines.

Echoing the advice of Joe Rogan, he recently said that “People under 50 who fundamentally have no health risks, there’s no scientific rationale for them to ever become vaccinated.”

Peter McCullough has gone so far as to believe that the COVID-19 vaccines should be taken off the market because there are too many reports of COVID vaccine deaths.

Where?

There are too many reports of COVID vaccine deaths in VAERS.

You would think that someone with a Master of Public Health and a degree in General Epidemiology would understand how VAERS works, right?

And rapid cycling analysis?

Is Peter McCullough talking about COVID vaccine deaths because he is upset that everyone thought his COVID treatment plan was dangerous and didn't work?
Is Peter McCullough talking about COVID vaccine deaths because he is upset that everyone thought his COVID treatment plan was dangerous and didn’t work?

Instead, Peter McCullough:

  • believes that the impact of COVID-19 vaccines will be less than 1% because he says that the attack rate in the original clinical trials was less than 1%
  • pushes the idea of artificially low vaccine efficacy rates… has he seen the reports about breakthrough infections?
  • brings up the 1976 swine flu pandemic, saying the program was killed after 500 cases of GBS and 25 deaths, except for the fact that there was no evidence of swine flu transmission and that year had more to do with ending the program early more than anything else
  • tries to compare yearly flu vaccine deaths in VAERS to COVID-19 vaccine deaths in VAERS, apparently not understanding that COVID-19 vaccines initially went to older folks with the highest mortality rates
  • pushes the idea of a “scrubbing” of COVID vaccine deaths and that the Trusted News Initiative, instead of combating fake news and misinformation, is somehow hiding the “truth” about COVID-19 vaccines because they are worried about vaccine hesitancy. I guess that’s why they didn’t publish stories about anything negative about vaccines, like blood clots and the Janssen vaccine pause?!? Oh wait, they did…
  • says that the risk of blood clots from the mRNA vaccines are 30 times that of the J&J vaccine, even though those vaccines don’t have any extra risk of blood clots and natural COVID infections have high risk of blood clots!
  • repeats the myth that 60 to 70% of COVID patients are vaccinated
  • states that the COVID-19 vaccines only provide narrow immunity against the original wild strain of SARS-CoV-2, I guess missing all of the studies that have shown that they provide immunity against most of the new variants
  • misinterprets why a COVID-19 vaccine trial in Australia was stopped after participants developed false positive HIV tests, stating that it was because “code for the virus, parts of the code that were attempted to be used in an Australian vaccine turned HIV tests positive.” In reality, it was not the code for SARS-CoV-2 virus, but part of a HIV virus protein that caused the problem with that vaccine.
  • pushes the idea that vaccines may be dangerous or are wasted on people who have already had COVID-19, even though studies are showing that they have an even greater immune response that folks who were uninfected
  • has testified before the HHS committee that India has few COVID-19 deaths because they give everyone hydroxychloroquine first line with other drugs, which doesn’t explain all of the deaths in their new COVID wave
  • even brings up the Nuremberg Code
  • and of course, Peter McCullough thinks that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a manufactured virus, that Dr. Fauci was “at the scene of the crime,” and that this was “probably bioterrorism that went wrong…”

Maybe he should have stuck with cardiology.

“The United States government has made a decision, along with the stakeholders, the CDC, NIH, FDA, Big Pharma, World Health Organization, Gates Foundation – they have made a commitment to mass vaccination as a solution to the COVID-19 pandemic and we are going to really be witness to what’s going to happen in history. We are sitting on, right now, the biggest number of vaccine deaths, there have been tens of thousands of hospitalizations, all attributable to the vaccine, and going strong.”

Peter McCullough

Or at the very least, maybe he can stop telling people that he graduated from UT Southwestern Medical School in Dallas!

“Right now, the vaccine program is voluntary. That’s one of the problems. I think it should take a doctor’s order. Because at least then we could hold doctors feet to the fire with respect to safety, efficacy, and liability.”

Peter McCullough

As a fellow alum, I have to say that I am embarrassed that my alma mater could have graduated someone who is doing so much damage during a global pandemic.

“We have doctors who are off the rails.”

Peter McCullough

And I’m starting to understand how graduates of MIT (Stephanie Seneff), Dartmouth (Paul Thomas, Christiane Northrup), Harvard (Tetyana Obukhanych), and NYU (Larry Palevsky, Kelly Brogan) feel…

Peter McCullough has settled in nicely with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Tucker Carlson, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., etc.
Peter McCullough has settled in nicely with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Tucker Carlson, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., etc.

More than anything though, I’m beyond frustrated that “we” do nothing as all of these doctors who are off the rails continue their “panic prescribing” and prescription hype and now spread misinformation and propaganda that scares people away from getting vaccinated and protected.

More on Peter McCullough and COVID Vaccine Deaths

12 thoughts on “Did a Highly Cited Doctor Say That the Government is Scrubbing COVID Vaccine Deaths?”

  1. Ok but all this article did is attack that mans character… You didn’t refute or dispute or fact check any of his claims.

  2. “The doctor in question is Peter McCullough, a cardiologist without any special infectious disease training or expertise in vaccines.” Does Vincent Iannelli, M.D, a pediatrician, have any special infectious disease training or expertise in ?

  3. After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr. McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington, cardiology fellowship including service as Chief Fellow at William Beaumont Hospital, and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan. Dr. McCullough is a practicing internist and cardiologist and Professor of Medicine at Texas A & M College of Medicine.

    Dr. McCullough has broadly published on a range of topics in medicine with > 1000 publications and > 600 citations in the National Library of Medicine. His works include the “Interface between Renal Disease and Cardiovascular Illness” in Braunwald’s Heart Disease Textbook. Dr. McCullough is a founder and current president of the Cardiorenal Society of America, an organization dedicated to bringing cardiologists and nephrologists together to work on the emerging problem of cardiorenal syndromes. His works have appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, British Medical Journal and other top-tier journals worldwide. He is the editor-in-chief of Cardiorenal Medicine, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, and senior associate editor of the American Journal of Cardiology. He serves on the editorial boards of multiple specialty journals. Dr. McCullough has made presentations on the advancement of medicine across the world and has been an invited lecturer at the New York Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency. He has served as member or chair of data safety monitoring boards of 24 randomized clinical trials.

  4. This article attempts to marginalise Dr Mc Cullough based on the following;

    1.believes that the impact of COVID-19 vaccines will be less than 1% because he says that the attack rate in the original clinical trials was less than 1%

    Using Pfizer as an example. Vaccine cohort 8/22000 cases of covid-19. Placebo cohort 162/22,000 cases of covid-19. The vaccine then has ‘saved’ 154 people out of 22,000 from contracting covid-19. That equates to 0.7%. It seems the good doctor was too generous allowing 1%.

    2. pushes the idea of artificially low vaccine efficacy rates… has he seen the reports about breakthrough infections?

    One wonders if the author knows what a breakthrough infection is? The true efficacy of these vaccines outlined above is that they have reduced infection rates by less than 1%.

    3. brings up the 1976 swine flu pandemic, saying the program was killed after 500 cases of GBS and 25 deaths, except for the fact that there was no evidence of swine flu transmission and that year had more to do with ending the program early more than anything else.

    Did the swine flu vaccine cause 500 cases of GBS? Yes. What is GBS? Guillaine Barre Syndrome. What is it? Full or partial body paralysis. How long does it last? Typically anywhere between 6 – 18 months with the return of movement being gradual and in most sufferers they never fully recover. And lets not forget those 25 deaths caused by the vaccine. How is mentioning this historical fact which is clear evidence of the dangers associated with rushed development of vaccines somehow a black mark against his character?

    4. tries to compare yearly flu vaccine deaths in VAERS to COVID-19 vaccine deaths in VAERS, apparently not understanding that COVID-19 vaccines initially went to older folks with the highest mortality rates.

    So co-morbidities in the elderly are a factor we must consider when reviewing post-vaccine deaths but not when reviewing post covid-19 infection deaths. This obvious bias leads into the next issue which is …

    5. pushes the idea of a “scrubbing” of COVID vaccine deaths and that the Trusted News Initiative, instead of combating fake news and misinformation, is somehow hiding the “truth” about COVID-19 vaccines because they are worried about vaccine hesitancy. I guess that’s why they didn’t publish stories about anything negative about vaccines, like blood clots and the Janssen vaccine pause?!? Oh wait, they did…

    The evidence of media ‘scrubbing’ of vaccine deaths is evident in the above where you imply the age and co-morbidities of post vaccine deaths should mitigate the numbers but do not apply the same standard to post covid-19 infection deaths.

    As to blood clots they are not openly reported. The only blood clots reported on are those assessed as TTS (associated with low platelet count). There are many more (as in thousands) of blood clots post-vaccine which are ignored because it is assumed they are not vaccine related. Blood clots with low platelets is so rare in normal life that the incidence following vaccination could not be easily dismissed.

    6. states that the COVID-19 vaccines only provide narrow immunity against the original wild strain of SARS-CoV-2, I guess missing all of the studies that have shown that they provide immunity against most of the new variants.

    The WHO, CDC and FDA amongst others have suggested this may very well be the case so his views here are quite mainstream.

    7. even brings up the Nuremberg Code…

    So? So what? You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Are you claiming the Nuremberg Code is not a thing? This is completely irrelevant and a good indication this is a desperate hit piece.

    8. and of course, Peter McCullough thinks that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a manufactured virus, that Dr. Fauci was “at the scene of the crime,” and that this was “probably bioterrorism that went wrong…”

    Yes. Isn’t the passage of time a wonderful thing. The former head of the CDC thinks this too. And now Dr Fauci concedes it may be the case. The Ecohealth, Peter Dzasak link is bubbling to the surface at this very moment and your hubris in this article is coming back to bite you …

  5. I am gratified to see this blatant hit piece refuted, point by point. That out-patient treatment has been deliberately blocked by officialdom is undeniable, also that the entire US population is being rudely stampeded into Covid-19 inoculations without the slightest regard for age- or health-related risk. Dr. McCullough is right to suggest that the entire aim of this artificial pandemic appears to be to inject and tag every man, woman and child with one or another experimental gene therapy, using every means available.

  6. The person who wrote this article is a Quack!!! Politicized Medicine!! mRNA Therapies, such as the one being sold as the COVID vaccines, are not vaccines as defined by CDC, NIH, or the AMA. I went and read the definitions myself, because I heard conflicting information on what they actually are. They are genetic therapies, as defined, not vaccines. So, to be against the COVID Vaccine isn’t anti-vax, its anti-gene therapy… and more, anti-experimental gene therapy. Because they are still experimental.

    How about this???? Specific people, individually liable, executives and scientists of the companies producing these “vaccines”, Doctors and medical organizations that issue the ‘Vaccines”, and the government official responsible for promoting and distributing these “vaccines” to the public, that they are legally liable for any and all damage, adverse affects, and death caused by the “Vaccines”? That all individuals responsible from the top down, be on the line (as it were) for potential civil and criminal liability and not protected from such.

    IF these therapies are safe and effective, then justice will protect them. IF they are dangerous and/or harmful, then we have recourse against the entire industry to seek justice for the harm they caused. As it stands right now, no REAL recourse can take place. No one can be held liable should it turn out that the long term consequences of taking the experimental treatment have perminant and harmful effects beyond what is currently being witnessed.

    This guy is saying, for your health and the health of others, even if you are not in an ‘at risk’ category, to take an experimental, almost totally untested, genetic therapy, that DOESN’T stop you from getting COVID-19, and DOESN”T prevent you from transmitting COVID-19, if infected, to other people, even if the other person received the same/similar treatment, and this is for your and other’s health.???

    QUACK!!!!!!!!!!

  7. I’ve noticed a pattern in all the people this site seeks to minimize and slander – they’re all vastly more accomplished and widely cited than the crank author of this website.

  8. How come there was NEVER a discussion and push for early treatment by ANY doctor except McCullough? How come doctors suppressed early treatment therefore causing so many unnecessary deaths? We are going to find out and some people are going to pay for this. Small fauci should be chastised if not sent to jail for all the deaths that he is responsible. He has been amassing a fortune on this so called pandemic. As have some others such as bill gates.

  9. The author of this goofy hit piece should be ashamed. Unless Vincent Iannelli is a young child who researched a couple of Yahoo! News stories before writing this schlock, he has NO excuse for peddling these overt untruths. You’re on the wrong side, Vincent. Try to restore your conscience. Don’t hand over your discernment and ethical standards so easily–even if all your friends tell you to.

  10. A quick search on Google Scholar, which presumably our humble author used, shows that McCullough has been cited tens of thousands of times. Why the misleading? A few examples:

    “Combined Angiotensin Inhibition for the Treatment of Diabetic Nephropathy” has 620 citations. “Kidney disease as a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease” has 4929 citations.

    Why the misleading?

  11. Clearly, the author of this article has most likely been paid to continue a dead and false narrative while attempting to discredit a good Dr. whose credibility, obviously, is well beyond the author’s league. Truth has a funny habit of surfacing, and thus has made this author a shining example of a Fool.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: