Will Big Pharma Face Justice Under Trump? w/ Peter McCullough MD
39:54 Share

Well, we're excited for our guest today. We always have a great time with this gentleman. He's been a voice of truth and a voice of courage during the pandemic, and now we are excited to see what the next steps in his career will take. And that is Dr. Peter McCullough joins us. How you doing?

Good. Thank you. It's great to have you on. And here we are during the Christmas season. And a lot of people are excited. There's a lot of energy. I mean, every day it seems like a new government is having a coup. Everybody's getting their countries realigned right in time for Trump to come in. Every time we look around, it's South Korea, it's Syria. I mean, goodness gracious. Hopefully it's not ours. You know, we don't need any more chaos around here. But

Nevertheless, it's a time for opportunity for change. And, you know, I think here's what I want to say from the outset, and then I'll let you go where you want to go with this. But I think regardless of what they're able to accomplish with Make America Healthy Again, it is going to shift the Overton window. It is shifting the Overton window of what's really going on in our food system, in our medical system, in the FDA system, all of these things. And you won't be able to put that cat back in the bag.

It just won't happen because it's not like people, once they understand how, for example, something that I've pioneered, you know, we've talked about it, seed oils. I was the only guy out on news radio talking about this every day, every night. In 2018, nobody was talking about seed oils and how they affect the health and what we could do politically about it. And now everybody's talking about it. But these things, once they get out, even if they fail to deliver the regulatory reforms that we want,

It's not like people are going to say, well, well, let's just go back to the toxic soybean oil in everybody's food. Let's just keep doing that for the next. No, it's not going to happen. So the change is afoot. And I'm excited to see what you think we should do going forward in this moment. So, Dr. Peter McCullough, what do you think?

It was a brilliant strategy to coin the phrase MAHHA, or Make America Healthy Again, the acronym. No doubt about it, the health of Americans has been in decline for decades with the obesity pandemic. Even despite smoking dramatically declining over time, the health of Americans, almost by so many metrics, has worsened.

So if we were to review from 1900 forward, 1900, the average man, certainly there were exceptions, but the average man lived into their 40s. That's about it. And we knew at that time it could have been as high as 80% of people smoked.

There was no understanding with respect to diet or fitness and people lived in terrible living conditions. You know, unclean drinking water, sewer wastewater not being disposed of in ways that are, you know, designed to keep populations free of disease. Families living in crowded conditions. The overall squalor.

that people were faced with largely promoted diseases. Almost all the diseases that we acquired, the infectious diseases, were ones of poor sanitation and diet, including smallpox and measles, polio, mumps, rubella.

diphtheria, pertussis, haemophilus influenzae B, David, all of them were diseases that were in a sense markedly enhanced because of poor living conditions. Now, fortunately, as living conditions improved,

from 1900 forward. And particularly once we got to the 1950s and 60s and the water supply cleaned up and we had proper sewage treatment, these diseases largely went away. Now the mortality from these illnesses reduced dramatically, way more than 90% before a single vaccine

So that's important to understand. The vaccines didn't end these diseases. It was actually improvements in sanitation and diet. But with smoking going from 80% to 17% point prevalence, we've seen, you know, we don't have

serious mortalities from these infectious diseases anymore. But we've seen obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and that cluster skyrocket. And then we go into the pandemic years where everyone's health went backwards, both with COVID-19 and the vaccines. Right. You know, and at the same time, you know, there's a lot of things people are saying. Some people are saying we need to, I just had a phone call when I was

You know, headed into to this office to do this with interview with you. Somebody was telling me we got to ban pharmaceutical advertising on television. Somebody else said, got to do this, got to do that. A lot of people are pushing ideas, you know, to me and folks, because I've become like a nexus for a lot of different folks that, you know, they come in, they the show's almost the tip of the iceberg of what's really happening in the conversations. And that's great that way. But

There's a lot of people who think we need to have regulatory impositions on some of the bad actors in medicine and food and all the additives, the dyes and again, these toxic seed oils that

When they fry them, especially, they produce all these aldehydes and these horrible things. It's like smoking a pack of cigarettes. So every time you're giving your kid chicken nuggets and fries once or twice a week because it's a busy, you know, that's like them smoking a pack of cigarettes.

almost with the amount of aldehydes and all these other toxic chemicals that create all kinds of destructive things to our mitochondria and our thyroid and everything gets dysregulated. And so, you know, people say, should we do the free market thing? We're just trying to repeal some of the regulations that have, that have shut down the alternatives to big pharma and big food, or should we repeal those regulations again?

and then repeal the subsidies of these big food and big pharma, and then put regulations to ban their things. And recently, Trump was on 60 Minutes, or was it Meet the Press? It's anybody 85 and up that watches those shows. And he was talking to that crowd, and the Meet the Press lady was doing her due job to represent the interest of big pharma. And she said, you know, this is all, you know, we've done all the studies.

All those childhood vaccines are perfectly fine. And he said, well, we're going to look at each one of them. You know, he said, if someone tells me to ban the polio vaccine, I'm going to probably, that's going to be a hard sell to me. But as far as some of those, we're going to look at every single one of them.

So where do you stand between, you know, like in your goal, do you think we should just level the playing field and allow the free market? Or should we actually ban some of these things like red 40 and other toxic, you know, chemicals that are being thrown into our food system? Like we're a bunch of garbage pills. Yeah.

Let's take water first. I think the two signals that are under review is added fluoride to the water supply. Now, about 72% of municipalities add some fluoride to the water supply. There was a 2017 HHS technology safety review on this, and

They recommend keeping fluoride levels less than 0.7 milligrams per liter, well below a toxic limit of 1.5. There was about five ex-US studies showing too much fluoride could reduce

mental development in children. The use of fluoride is marginally beneficial for the teeth nowadays. A Cochrane analysis shows it's kind of a trivial benefit. So I think fluoride be the first one and maybe no longer adding fluoride to the water would just remove one concern. Another concern in the elderly is aluminum in the tap water supply. And by the way, this applies to bottled water as well.

There, a French study has shown with higher aluminum in the water supply, more accelerated rates of cognitive decline in dementia. I think we need reviews there and this is a good use of government resources to do that. On the food supply,

Low-hanging fruit are trans fats. Trans fats are, the most common one is partially hydrogenated soybean oil. So these oils, and they can be from beans, seeds, and vegetables. If they're chemically modified to be partially hydrogenated, they're called trans fats. American Heart Association has wanted to get them out of the food supply since 2009. They had a resolution on this. WHO agrees.

The FDA has been trying to do this kind of slow walking it. McDonald's took it out and so did Burger King out of their cooking. Well, we just need to get rid of it all together. That means redesign of packaged foods on the store shelves.

So I think that's low-hanging fruit there in terms of food. What about food? Yeah. Well, I was just going to add, you know, you do have a lot of great research in the field of cardiology and so forth. How do you view just traditional, you know, these, it's not traditional, they're still industrial, but these seed oils that are not trans, they're not hydrogenated, when you talk about excess omega-6,

You know, a lot of folks that I've been talking to, Dr. Chris Kenobi has a great chart showing that the increase of these, that just not trans, but regular vegetable oils correlate very nicely with the rise in spikes in obesity. And sugar actually has declined significantly.

And in that rate of obesity keeps going up and the vegetable oils are just really dovetailing very nicely with that. And then there's a lot of there's a lot of arguments about the way in which when you have omega six rich, you know, vegetable oil in dog food and other animal pet foods and that, you know, that it's one thing to say, well, you know.

animals, you know, it's easy to scapegoat something like sugar and say we're all just fat because we eat a lot of sugar. But that doesn't really hold up to the data. It seems like it's sugar in the presence of excess omega-6s.

foods, including chicken fat and all these other things, but particularly the seed oils, which are in all these fried foods and things that create such a havoc on the metabolic systems of people and animals, because, you know, dogs are not eating extra sugar. OK, I mean, they're, you know, zoo animals who are fed kibble, who are having obesity problems.

Typically, you know, they're not being fed a bunch of extra sugar. They're being fed foods rich with polyunsaturated fatty acids. Do you think that that needs to be explored? Because American Heart Association still, I think, recommends vegetable oils and highly PUFA foods over saturated fat. Have they unfairly targeted saturated fat in terms of the heart, you know, hypothesis in terms of cholesterol and everything causing...

dietary cholesterol causing heart attacks and all the different issues? No, not that I, not in my viewpoint, David. I think the big villain here is trans fats. So we're talking partially hydrogenated soybean oil. That's way, way more concerning than

corn oil or canola oil or other vegetable oils or seed oils. Trans fats are chemically modified. They're directly atherogenic. They stimulate production of cholesterol in the liver.

They're the big ticket item out there. And, you know, if the Maha movement, particularly Robert F. Kennedy, would just focus on trans fats, there's just a massive amount of literature. It kind of dwarfs anything else. And if we can focus on that, that means a lot of granola bars and cereals and cookies and snacks.

microwave popcorn, frozen pizza, all that has to be redesigned on the shelf. So I'd zero in on trans fats more than anything else at this point in time. So you don't see any problem with excess omega-6 consumption with some of the heart problems that we have and obesity and diabetes? You know, I'm not a dietary expert, but, you know, I just don't see people eating too many

sunflower seeds or what have you. I just don't think that's where the action is. It's really the trans fats. I mean, that is far and away the biggest. You look at any package that people are eating,

It says partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Now, they may use a different seed oil, but it's chemically modified. It's partially hydrogenated. That's where the big problem is. Like three tablespoons of regular corn oil is equal to 96 years of corn in terms of the fat amount. So this is a Frankenstein food in and of itself.

I know, but people will cook with something. So people say, well, I don't want canola. I don't want corn. I say, well, we have great data with extra virgin olive oil.

but again, I'm not an expert on it. I don't want people to get confused on where all the data are. It's on trans fats. We ought to say the word trans fats. When Bloomberg in New York got rid of trans fats in 2006, just out of the fast food restaurants, heart attack rates dropped in New York City. Trans fats are that important. What about highly saturated fats like coconut oil and beef tallow? Do you think that those are heart healthy?

No. You don't think they're heart healthy? Okay. No, I don't consume them. And so, you know, the thing about saturated fats, they stimulate the production of cholesterol. Cholesterol blocks the arteries to the heart and causes heart attack and stroke. So we just have that circle over and over again. We ought to zero in on trans fats. Again, all the expert academic community, the nutrition community, everyone would agree on that. Now, if there's a wider net of

and there's other oils that really have compelling data, then our choices of what to work with become less. That's fine by me. You won't hear any argument from me on that. So we've covered water and food. Now the vaccines...

You know, of interest, anyone who says, oh, the safety has been reviewed, they are quickly out of date because more and more vaccines are added to the schedule each time. I was recently on a show with Matt Staver, and I pointed out, and I backed it up with a graphic, around ages one, you know, one year of life, a child is going to receive a battery of about 16 different vaccines. Now, they're in combination products like MMR and DPT.

et cetera. But the safety of giving the combination has never been studied. Because in a sense, these brand new, these combinations become even greater every time. So there's, if I gave you 16 drugs all at once, chances are you're going to have a side effect. Yeah. So you think we need to talk about like a spacing amount or something? Is that what you're...

Or we just need to investigate spacing them out or even giving them in the first place? Well, there's a couple steps. I think the first step would be to remove any liability protection for vaccine companies. They're like any other drug company. They make drugs as well. They need to have standard liability protection.

you know, for their products. So if that liability shield was removed, probably some of the companies would remove some of their products from the market right away. So that would really thin out the review if there were fewer products to review. I think that's the first step. The second step is to ban all forms of mandates. No one should be mandated to take a shot for anything, for school or for college or military. There should be no vaccine requirements. Vaccines should be a personal choice.

So I think with removing the liability shield and banning all vaccine mandates, now without any pressure, we can begin to review the vaccine schedule, you know, one by one and in combination. And we should have an unbiased external review of this.

And so people can be adequately informed. But if you did those two things, David, I think all the tension of these arguments would quickly go away if people knew they weren't forced to take them or if they didn't feel as if their children were forced to take them. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

I think that that is the really big thing is the coercion element. And that leads me to another question I thought would be relevant for this conversation, which is the role of the FDA and what should be reformed there. One of the things that I've always been annoyed by is a principled issue about the FDA's

structure that I find to be completely anti-scientific. And it goes like this. If you have a price tag of about a billion dollars to get through the FDA approval process, that fundamentally precludes any kind of repurposed generic drug or naturally occurring substance like vitamin D from being properly gone through the process to be able to make a health claim about its

You know, it's efficacy. So my thought is, you know, if you start with that foundation the way they have it, you are never going to have a true scientific basis for exploration for supporting the human body with various diseases. If you start with the basis of, in order to make a health claim, this substance helps you with arthritis or helps mitigate symptoms related to diabetes.

Okay, what is it? It's anything that's got a patent. Okay, once you've started that, you've completely precluded

the proper scientific method from taking place because you're not able to have the, because if it's, again, if it's not patented, who's going to be the company who says, okay, I'm going to take aspirin. I'm going to put a billion dollars into researching it for X, Y, or Z. And then everybody else can sell aspirin. Or if, you know, vitamin D, I'm going to be the selfless group. Pfizer is going to put a billion dollars to research vitamin D for this indication. And then everybody can sell it.

Who's going to put that kind of thing? So it automatically precludes the full options of exploration that we should be able to have. We need to be able to have new drugs. That needs to be reformed. But we also need to be able to look at repurposed drugs or natural things. How do you think we could go about doing that? What we need is it would be wonderful to have some type of –

I guess, compendium of indications what we progressively use drugs for

that everybody could reference. So, you know, our guidelines stipulate, you know, we use drugs that are in cardiology as class one, you know, one indication, class two, class three. So, you know, that, you know, class one is, you know, strongly supports using the drugs. Those guidelines recommendations don't necessarily match the FDA guidelines.

package insert that a company applies for. Because what the company applies for is what they want to make marketing claims on. What the doctors find it useful for is something completely different. So it'd be nice to have some universal indexing of that. So for instance, we found ivermectin very useful for the treatment of acute COVID-19. Well, you know, that should be an indexed indication somewhere, even though the original companies applied to have it treat parasitic diseases.

Same thing with a bunch of, there's a whole bunch of cardiovascular drugs. Like for instance, one that's used in heart failure all the time is a blood pressure drug called busoprolol. It actually doesn't have an indication to treat heart failure, but in fact, you know, we use it for that purpose. So, I mean, that would be useful for people, the lay public to know, doctors know when to use drugs. You know, conversely, doctors just want people off their backs. They want to use drugs to help people get better and according to community standard of care.

Do you think we should reform some of the FDA laws there? Because it's basically de facto criminal to make a health claim about anything that's not patented, really, because you can't afford the patent. You see what I mean? You can't afford the FDA approval process unless it's patented. Therefore, anybody who wants to say, hey, vitamin D or ivermectin or Z-Pak can help with X, Y, or Z, you really can't have any kind of

you don't have the same ability to speak about that. You know, pharmaceutical drug companies can talk about these things that don't work all day long because they pay for the billion dollar price tag and they go through the whole process and then they can say Paxlovid does nothing really. It does nothing good for you really. It's garbage. And there's things that you could take that are generic, but you can't say that on television without

fearing for criminal prosecution. So don't you think that needs to be revisited? Probably on the Federal Trade Commission side, for sure. Companies feel frustrated about what claims they can make. But it's a complicated topic, David, to tell you the truth. The FDA does have laws. There are registered claims in what's called the Orange Book.

The Federal Trade Commission works under separate rules. It's very complicated. Off the top of my head, I couldn't propose a simple solution at this point in time because consumers do need to be protected against baseless claims, things that could be deceptive, so-called deceptive trade practices. I mean, that's what Ken Paxton in Texas is suing Pfizer over on their vaccines, deceptive trade practices. Right.

Another area, though, that has been mentioned that talk about deception, and that's direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. And it's only the United States and New Zealand do that. I think that's an area where if the FDA could work with HHS, write legislation, we could stop that tomorrow, and the companies would save money.

consumers wouldn't be deceived or confused. And I think, you know, largely everyone would be happy, except for the drug companies, without direct-to-consumer advertising. Now, one of the things that I think people are also interested in is learning what accountability, if any, will happen for the folks who were involved with the pandemic misinformation in terms of

You know, who unleashed it and how and why and why weren't we allowed to know the truth and why were people censored and why were doctors persecuted for doing alternative means of treatment that worked? I mean, you were in the middle of all of this, and yet we hear rumors and stuff online that maybe Biden's going to do a pardon for people like Fauci and stuff. So it's kind of a.

It's kind of concerning there that anyone that wants to get to the bottom of this and what might happen in the future with gain-of-function type research, that we could stop that from happening in the same way it did this past time. People are concerned that there won't be any real accountability or changes made to stop this from happening again. Any thoughts on how to deal with that? The 590-page coronavirus subcommittee led by Brad Wenstrup, that report,

did not recommend special counsels at all. No special investigators assigned for any criminal wrongdoing. And three major areas of criminal wrongdoing are the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and all of those that conspired to create this virus that got us sick. The second major area is the suppression of early treatment. Who was behind that that effectively led to people being unnecessarily hospitalized and dying?

And then the last would be on the unsafe and ineffective vaccines. Why aren't they taken off the market? Who's been pulling the levers this entire time? But no special counsels or prosecutors recommended here, David. So I think the answer is no. It looks like there's going to be no justice. What do you think Kennedy or other folks could do to maybe re-look at that, to re-examine that? It would have to be a new...

body of some sort. I guess HHS could work with the executive branch or with Congress, then ultimately, again, assign these special prosecutors and then have a lineup of targets, people who think really did commit the crime, like Anthony Fauci being a target. And then the

And you know subjects people who would be interviewed who could have been involved, and then ultimately witnesses, it would be a big ordeal and they would find a lot the web of potential targets and subjects would be huge.

So while I would like to see it happen, as you probably would like to see it happen, I don't think the Trump administration is going to muster this force. I think there's so many fish to fry right now in terms of foreign affairs, domestic affairs, the economy, immigration issues.

I just have a feeling that this whole COVID pandemic, this terrible time is going to die without any justice being served. Unless there's good media stuff that keeps it alive. So that's what we're doing. And, you know, you've always, that's why you do these things. You're, you're, you're been a keeper of the flame for justice on these matters. And I think we shouldn't, we shouldn't play to lose. We should play to win and keep going, you know? So,

I say we keep the conversation going. So in that vein, do you think Bill Gates should be investigated for what he may have done here? Yeah, he should be a target. So a target means that we think there was criminal wrongdoing. Everything from, in a sense, insider trading from the Gates Foundation, its investments in bio and tech, his undue influence on the CDC, the CDC Foundation, the WHO Foundation,

how the WHO conducted these fraudulent messaging campaigns through what's called international focal points. Our international focal point for WHO is PAHO, the Pan American Health Organization in Washington. So that explains, David, why on the same day all over the world, the exact same press statement came out. So one day it came out, no one is safe.

It literally came out as a mantra, if you will, all over the world. One day, another one came out and said, crisis of the unvaccinated. And everyone said it in the world all at once. There's only one way to coordinate that, and that's through an international organization, and it was the WHO. And that Trusted News Initiative thing was part of that too with BBC? The Trusted News Initiative was worldwide, and that worked to suppress any hope of treatment

And then also any information on vaccine safety. So if treatment could be suppressed, vaccine safety should be suppressed. Then this Trusted News Initiative, in a sense, could become a vaccine promotional campaign through the media. And that's what happened. So that is concerning to me because none of those folks have had any discipline or anything going on. So they're going to do it again if they can, because that made so much money.

This made so much money and so much power and so much control over markets. I mean, made people a lot of money in banks and everybody that was able to consolidate capital into oligarchic interests.

So you can't let that go. I mean, that would be a foolish thing to do. Some of us are still young and we have, we've got a young life to live. We're not going to let that go. So that's the problem with an aging government. They kind of get a low, I'm not trying to be mean, but you know, when you're, when you're in your seventies and eighties and bureaucracy and governmental power, you don't have the same, you know, time horizon of like things to get done. You know, you kind of like, Oh, let's just trim this, trim that. And 10 years or whatever, I'll be,

sailing you know and and that's not the mindset of the people that have to be living with these people's consequential decisions right so we we got to have accountability for that and we don't want to allow criminal thugs to go undisciplined at the very least there needs to be something and i'm concerned about all those bio labs that they found in ukraine what what happened with that you know we're not even allowed to have that conversation apparently still

I'm greatly concerned about the biolabs in the United States. There's dozens and dozens of them. Little or no oversight. There's no inventory of where these pathogens are, where the dangerous ones near large population centers. You know, I think every state should be having meetings about

about gain-of-function research done in their state next to their communities, they should take matters into their own hands. I mean, honestly, I think all this

gain of function biological research to create new what's called dual pathogens of pandemic concern that's what the bite administration calls it i think those efforts are are very dangerous society's not seeing the benefit of this at all and we're on the brink of a new lab leak every day yeah that's uh

That's that's it's it's concerning to me and I'm not going to keep pushing this in the media. I want to I heard somebody I don't know. I'm trying to find the source here. I should have had it ready to go. But I saw earlier this week there was this news that there was a special counsel looking into Peter Daszak. Have you looked into that?

No, I haven't heard any word. Certainly, Desik was, he's part of the co-conspiratorial team that created SARS-CoV-2. It's him, Anthony Fauci, Dr. Xingling Li, and Dr. Ralph Baric. They clearly would be the four targets. Underneath them would be David Morins, who's Fauci's assistant,

And, of course, many more. Now, the laboratories involved are the UNC Chapel Hill Lab, but also the National Institutes of Health NIAID Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Hamilton, Montana. A lot of people haven't talked about this, but they clearly had Barak's virus there. They were trying to infect Egyptian fruit bats there.

in a publication they published from that lab and they were unsuccessful. So people in Hamilton, Montana were unnecessarily exposed as well as Chapel Hill. The final work was done in Wuhan. That's where the leak ultimately happened and people started getting sick quickly. But this reckless research was done in the United States. And I agree with you. There appears to be no justice.

I've seen reports that a team, including Dr. Paul Merrick and Pierre Corey, have been looking at ivermectin as it relates to possibly helping with cancer. Have you looked into that? I know you've talked about ivermectin a lot, and do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, people are always excited to see how drugs that can be used for multiple applications can help people, especially with the cost of care being so high for people.

Through the pandemic, there should be spinoffs, right? Just like the great, you know, the great quest for space exploration generated spinoffs. So ivermectin, I've reviewed it on my sub stack, has some anti-cancer properties as an antiviral and antiparasitic. It should be thoroughly explored in randomized trials. Another compound that has anti-

cancer properties is fembenazole, that's another anti-parasitic. And then lastly curcumin, which is derived from tumeric. These three have emerged, you know, they're orally administered. Then intravenous would be vitamin C.

So we need large prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Big Pharma isn't going to do it, so it's going to have to be the NCI, the National Cancer Institute branch of the NIH. I'd like to see it happen. I can tell you my clinic is filled with cancer patients who want natural alternatives. They're willing to go through all the standard chemo, radiation,

and surgery, but they want natural alternatives. Two leading centers I commonly refer to are the Brzezinski Center in Katy, Texas, and then Brio Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona.

I know that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is looking like he could be the NIH director. I think he's a guy who would really take some of these things seriously based on his work that I've gotten to know. And also Jim O'Neill is being proposed by Trump to be the deputy secretary of HHS. And I know that he is very...

enthusiastic about repurposing drugs and so forth. So who knows what might be able to come out of their leadership that we could get some of this stuff researched. People can talk about all day long about, well, there's all these complications. I come from a Christian standpoint, okay? So when I have to be, I don't care about a committee. I don't care about likes. I don't care about Twitter followers. None of that matters when you're standing in front of the creator, okay?

and we're all going to do it. And we will all have to give an account for what we did with the influence, the talents that God gave us, the power, the reach, whatever. So I don't care. I'm playing for an eternity perspective, and that's what matters to me. So I don't care about, oh, well, that regulation is going to tick off that group or that association. It doesn't mean anything to me. When you're standing in front of the Creator,

Right? He's not going to say, you know, I'm going to give you a pass because you were really nice to this lobby. I'm going to give you a pass to this group because you were really trying to do the best you could with them and you wanted to make sure you had a good retirement. I understand. You didn't want to get in trouble. No, he's going to say you had the chance to help little children not have cancer and you did nothing. You were given the power to stop these diseases and you did nothing.

The part for me, I never knew you. I don't want to deal with that. So I want to do what we can while we're here in this testing period of our, we got, if we're lucky, a hundred so years, maybe if we'd get our health good and we have good luck with no buses hitting us when we're crossing the street. And then we got to live forever and ever and ever in the age to come. That's a reality. That's not my, I'm not playing this game where we have to have private religion in the backseat of the bus anymore.

It's going to be the conversation that the founders and everybody else had, which is in how we shape our law should always be informed by these questions. So that's where I'm coming from. So I know you share a faith too. So I'm just throwing that out there to say, I don't care about upsetting people's rice bowls.

Jesus says, you know, if you harmed the little ones, it'd be better if you had a millstone tied around your neck and thrown into the ocean. That's what Jesus Christ says. You want that guy reading your performance review when you had the chance to stop these unnecessary diseases? And he's going to say, excuse me, I don't think you did it, did you? You knew you could have done X, Y, or Z to give people better alternatives for treatment, and you didn't do that? Hmm.

Those are powerful words. There's no doubt about it. We certainly have a fiduciary relationship, an important mission to help each and every person. That's what I've tried to do in my practice, David, to the best of my ability. And the last five years, I was stunned to realize that, in fact, obstacle upon obstacle is going to be thrown in front of me to try to block me from fulfilling my duties. Yeah.

So what's next for you? And you're where do you see you? Are you going to stay in the private sector at your private practice and keep speaking out at conferences and doing different things like that? Will you be doing something in addition to that? Will you have are you interested in a role in government as an advisor or, you know, look, I had Ron Paul, you know, he's another M.D.,

And I had him on my show and I asked him if he would help Elon. And now they're best friends on Twitter all day talking about how to cut government. So at Doge, so do you, would you want to work with a Doge to help clean up fat there? Or do you want to just keep doing what you're doing in the private sector and stay out of, stay out of the government stuff?

Well, I'm an independent practice in Dallas, Fort Worth area. So I see and examine patients. They come from all over the country, some outside the United States. I do that on a part-time basis. I'm also the chief scientific officer of the Wellness Company, and that's a national platform for health and wellness, nutraceutical supplements, telemedicine, and

health education, and both of those entities are doing very well and they're vibrant. I'm also the president of McCullough Foundation, which supports scholarship activities, our investigative research, our efforts in the media like today, and in the courts. I'm involved in dozens and dozens of cases, doing everything I can to help those who are seeking justice. And lastly, in public policy. So

What I've told many is that I'm certainly willing to serve the country. There's been no person I can think of in the last five years in the pandemic that's published more on this.

that's found more solutions than I have. I've found solutions not only for treating the virus, but now also for helping patients detoxify and actually work their way out of the problems with the vaccines. These are very, very important contributions and I'm willing to, in a very senior role, you know, to help the country in, you know, the best I can.

Well, Dr. Peter McCullough, I really appreciate you coming on and it's always great talking to you. So thank you for going through these various issues. They're so pertinent for everybody's thoughts right now. So it's always great to have you on. Thank you. And that's it for A Neighbor's Choice. You can email me hello at anaboardchoice.com. I'm David Gronowski.

Bye.