Comment on Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories by Joe Kim.
Thanks for your work. I had a particular interest in the talks given I knew several of the speakers personally. I didn’t get a chance to take notes (making breakfast for the kids), but just off the top of my head I recalled a couple of things about Dr. McCullough’s talk (haven’t gotten to the rest yet). This is probably nit-picking, but I believe Didier Raoult got in trouble for insurance fraud, not just for prescribing hydroxychloroquine as Dr. McCullough implied. His reference to this seemed to get quite a few gasps from the audience. I can’t say he did this solely for sensationalism, but definitely not the whole truth. The more troubling slide was the one on Dr. Mclachlan’s paper on VAERS. His team noted “only 14% of the cases for which a vaccine reaction could be ruled out as a contributing factor in their death.” That’s a far cry from the yellow highlighted heading he added to the article stating “86% of deaths had no other explanation than the vaccine.” How do we know the other 86% had no other explanation? Even the paper’s abstract says only 67% of the cases were reported by medical personnel. This implies that quite a bit were laypersons reporting. The investigators revealed they “found that for at least 13 of the 250 deaths (5%), a vaccine allergic reaction was indisputably the most likely direct cause.” 81% fell in the “other”.
I trust he’s studied this subject much more than I have, but I have to question the motive for this type of reporting other than to garner attention. I never want to needlessly harm a man’s reputation, but sometimes it’s warranted.
This is just me picking things up while flipping pancakes. I can’t imagine what else there is. I pray this issue does not become circumcision 2021 for our church.