Connect with us

COVID-19

Dr. McCullough praises RFK Jr., urges him to pull COVID shots from the market

Published

6 months ago

10 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

“I am behind what’s happening right now,” he said, of the likely inclusion of RFK Jr. and other “disruptors” such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the new administration. “I think the whole nation feels that we are finally getting back on track.”

In a video published November 15, prominent mRNA “vaccine” critic Dr. Peter McCullough responds to the Make America Healthy Again manifesto promised by the incoming Trump administration.

Welcoming the “tremendous … team selection” behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, McCullough also pressed the need for deep reform of a “corrupt” system.

“The pandemic has called for a sweep of corruption out of [U.S. government] agencies,” he said, warning viewers that “we don’t want health to be as political as other areas.”

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been described as a “vaccine skeptic” and charged with being unsuitable for the leadership of the U.S.’s main health agency.

“He is really just a person without a health background who’s already caused great damage in health in the country,” Georges C. Benjamin, former executive director of the American Public Health Association, told the BBC.

The incumbent administration, by contrast, considers the transvestite Richard Levine as unquestionably qualified to be assistant secretary of health.

Levine was described as “a dangerous man spewing potentially deadly information” in support of “the idea that children can change their sex.”

Jennifer Bilek, the leading critic of the “transgender” cult of “synthetic sexual identities,” says Levine is a “quack” who was placed in his influential position by the powerful “Big Pharma” lobby.

Levine, who calls himself “Rachel,” is described by Bilek as “a man dressed as a woman who wants your kid to do what he did.”

His tenure is a case in point of the deep corruption which McCullough says must be swept out by the new administration. McCullough also mentions the growing evidence that so-called “transgender care” is “increasing mortality” – ending lives, despite its supporters claims that puberty blockers and mutilation saves them.

“This is gone now,” said McCullough, citing President Trump’s statement that Medicare and Medicaid will no longer fund “transgender care.”

“We are not going to have children subjected to this,” said McCullough. He concludes by saying that not only should the public be protected from the harmful dominance of health by Big Pharma, but “protecting children from ‘transgender health’” is also a laudable priority for the new administration.

McCullough, who is the chief scientific officer at the Wellness Company and world-leading expert on internal medicine, cardiovascular diseases, and clinical lipidology, stresses the need for leadership of Health and Human Services which can bridge the political divide in America – rather than reinforce it.

“For Health and Human Services – which is Medicare, Medicaid, NIH, CDC, FDA – we want somebody who is going to be able to work with both political leanings,” he said.

He says the new health leadership must work for the American people – and their health – against the vested interests of “Big Pharma.”

McCullough believes the “disruptive force” of RFK Jr. will play a “big role” in restoring the confidence of the American public in its discredited institutions.

“I am behind what’s happening right now,” he said, of the likely inclusion of RFK Jr. and other “disruptors” such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in the new administration.

“I think the whole nation feels that we are finally getting back on track.”

McCullough puts the issue of the COVID-19 “vaccines” at the top of his list of priorities for RFK Jr.’s health leadership.

He reminds viewers that the “current ones on the market are not FDA-licensed,” explaining that “Biden ended the COVID-19 emergency years ago,” and so there is no public health reason to promote them.

“Nobody in America thinks we have an emergency,” he said, and “COVID-19 is like the common cold, so the vaccine boosters are not clinically indicated.”

Aside from being “medically unnecessary,” McCullough restates the so-called “vaccines” have had “great safety concerns, with injuries, disabilities and deaths.”

He notes that “sadly, the people who are in a sense forced to take them are sadly children – in order to fulfill the vaccine schedule and go to school.”

He called for the new government to “convene a safety review,” with “Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax at the table” with academics and former U.S. health agency leaders. What would be the message?

“They are coming off the market” is what McCullough says should be said about the experimental injections.

“I think America would be overjoyed,” he explained, if these so-called vaccines were taken off the market “for the reasons I have outlined.”

McCullough goes on to say that the issue is not restricted to the novel mRNA treatments, in demanding the removal of legislation which protects all scheduled vaccines from claims of injury.

This, he says, would compel vaccine manufacturers to have to “stand behind their products,” echoing RFK Jr.’s own claim that what he wants to see is the transparent and scientific review of all scheduled vaccines.

McCullough also notes that with the precursor supply chain for U.S. medicines captured by China, a Trump administration could repatriate drug manufacture to the U.S., providing a verifiable and secure provenance for American prescription drugs in future.

His endorsement of Kennedy marks the redemption arc of a man still labeled by U.S. and U.K. regime media as a “crank” for his criticism of the corruption of U.S. healthcare – and the dangers this represents to the American public.

Lambasted as an “anti-vaxxer” for refusing Dr. Anthony Fauci’s advice to “stick with the science” on vaccines, RFK Jr. was described by a former director of the CDC as “more science-oriented than a lot of his critics,” as what Kennedy is seeking is an evidence based review of vaccine safety.

Kennedy’s former campaign manager Dennis Kucinich said, “[RFK Jr.’s] position is to protect the people, to put people above profit.” 

Kucinich explained, “Kennedy is not opposed to vaccines, he’s for vaccine safety. He’s concerned about the health effects of pesticides, about GMOs, which are now populating our agriculture.”

Kennedy warned in a tweet of June 2021 about a published link between myocarditis and pericarditis and the Pfizer and ModeRNA “vaccines.”

In 2023, he followed up with an an extensive list of injury concerns for the same injections, which included Bell’s palsy, blood clotting, and death.

A video from November 10, 2024, saw him explain his position on vaccines to NewsNation.

“I think most people don’t know what my stance is on vaccines. I’ve never been anti-vaccine. And I’ve said that hundreds and hundreds of times, but it doesn’t matter, because that is a way of silencing me,” he said.

RFK Jr. went on to explain how and why he was silenced and stigmatized – a method familiar to any “vaccine skeptic”: “Using that pejorative to describe me is a way of silencing or marginalizing me.”

He said his position was simple – and universally popular.

“I think virtually every American would agree with my stance on vaccines, which is that vaccines should be tested like other medicines.”

Donald Trump’s election victory has delivered a mandate for change, strongly desired by the public, which McCullough welcomes for its potential to safeguard the American people, and their children, from an industry captive to profit and protected by censorship and propaganda.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 28 mins ago

Who owns Canada’s public debt?

Alberta / 42 mins ago

Bonnyville RCMP targeted by suspect driving a trackhoe

Business / 3 hours ago

BUILD CANADA NOW: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from Energy Leaders

COVID-19

Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns

Published on May 4, 2025

By

Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Monica Smit said she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Daniel Andrews based on ‘new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.’

The fiercest opponent of the former Victorian premier Daniel Andrews during the COVID crisis was activist Monica Smit. The government responded to her advocacy by arresting her for participating in anti-lockdown protests. When she refused to sign her bail conditions she was made, in effect, a political prisoner for 22 days.  

Smit subsequently won a case against the Victoria Police for illegal imprisonment, setting an important precedent. But in a vicious legal maneuver, the judge ensured that Smit would be punished again. She awarded Smit $4,000 in damages which was less than the amount offered in pre-trial mediation. It meant that, despite her victory, Smit was liable for Victoria Police’s legal costs of $250,000. It was not a good day for Australian justice. 

There is a chance that the tables will be reversed. Smit has announced she is launching a private criminal prosecution against Andrews and his cabinet based on “new evidence proving they enforced lockdowns without medical advice or evidence.”

The revelation that the savage lockdown policies made little sense from a health perspective is hardly a surprise. Very little of what happened made medical sense. For one thing, according to the Worldometer, about four-fifths of the people who tested positive for COVID-19 had no symptoms. Yet for the first time in medical history healthy people were treated as sick.  

The culpability of the Victorian government is nevertheless progressively becoming clearer. It has emerged that the Andrews government did not seek medical advice for its curfew policies, the longest in the Western world. Andrews repeatedly lied when he said at press conferences that he was following heath advice. 

David Davis, leader of the right wing opposition Liberal Party, has made public a document recording an exchange between two senior health officials. It shows that the ban on people leaving their homes after dark was implemented without any formal input from health authorities. 

Davis acquired the email exchange, between Victorian chief health officer Brett Sutton and his deputy Finn Romanes, under a Freedom of Information request. It occurred two-and-a-half hours after the curfew was announced. 

Romanes explained he had been off work for two days and was not aware of any “key conversations and considerations” about the curfew and had not “seen any specific written assessment of the requirement” for one. 

He added: “The idea of a curfew has not arisen from public health advice in the first instance. In this way, the action of issuing a curfew is a mirror to the State of Disaster and is not occurring on public health advice but is a decision taken by Cabinet.” Sutton responded with: “Your assessment is correct as I understand it.” 

The email exchange, compelling evidence of the malfeasance of the Andrews government, raises further questions. If Smit’s lawyers can get Andrews to respond under oath, one ought to be: “If you were lying about following medical advice, then why were you in such a hurry to impose such severe measures and attack dissenters?” 

It remains a puzzle. Why did otherwise inconsequential politicians suddenly turn into dictatorial monsters with no concern for what their constituents thought?  

The most likely explanation is that they were told it was a biowarfare attack and were terrified, ditching health advice and applying military protocols. The mechanism for this was documented in a speech by Queensland senator Malcolm Roberts.  

If so, was an egregious error of judgement. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed, 2020 and 2021 had the lowest level of respiratory diseases since records have been kept. There was never a pandemic. 

There needs to be an explanation to the Australian people of why they lost their liberty and basic rights. A private prosecution might achieve this. Smit writes: “Those responsible should face jail time, nothing less. The latest revelation of ‘document 34‘ is just the beginning. A public criminal trial will expose truths beyond our imagination.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on May 4, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

Trending

X