Connect with us

COVID-19

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

Published

1 month 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
Daily Caller / 7 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 7 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 8 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X