Unmasking COVID-19 Deceptions, Part II

Dr. Peter McCullough is a distinguished internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist. He is globally recognized for his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing expert advice when few other doctors would publicly stand for the truth. Coauthor of The Courage to Face COVID-19, he advocates for patient well-being over governmental, pharmaceutical, or deep state interests.

Note: this is a 4-part series. In Part II below, we explore the likelihood of future pandemics and the impact of COVID-19 on public health and the food supply. We also discuss the controversial WHO treaty that was just defeated—for now—and its implications for national sovereignty and global health governance.

MA: Are we likely to see another pandemic in the near future?

PM: It looks like we may be on the verge of one in the form of bird flu or a highly pathogenic avian influenza. There's been messaging on this for a long time. GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance, Bill Gates’ organization, has been saying since 2021 that disease X, the so-called next pandemic, will be bird flu.

Biotechnology company CSL recently acquired an FDA-approved pre-pandemic vaccine for bird flu in humans. So far, we haven't had substantial cases of bird flu in humans in the United States. The Chinese have been vaccinating poultry for decades, but their vaccines are very ineffective. The birds don’t get fulminant disease or die off in large numbers. They actually just live, spreading the virus and not gaining natural immunity. The French have vaccinated mallard ducks as part of their own gain-of-function research. Even an Athens, Georgia-based lab in America is doing gain-of-function research along these lines.

People have asked me, “How does bird flu land on a farm in West Texas?” The answer is migratory mallard ducks and other migratory waterfowl. So yes, a bird flu pandemic may be imminent ushered in by human agency.

Thankfully, it’s unlikely to significantly jump to humans, even as gain-of-function research continues. For now, I think the casualties will be chickens and hens—not because of the disease, but due to culling. Due to a recent case in West Texas, the USDA has ordered indiscriminate PCR testing of flocks of poultry, even cattle. It has been a massive campaign. Meanwhile, Sid Miller, Texas’ Ag Director in Texas, ordered the culling or destruction of millions of egg-laying hens at one of the nation's largest egg plants. So, what I predict is yes, there will be a pandemic, largely one that will unnecessarily affect the food supply.

MA: That’s frightening. Are you also concerned this situation could pose broader risks to humans?

PM: If there is human-to-human transmission, which hasn't occurred yet, the mortality rate can be substantial. Most of the cases affecting people have occurred in underdeveloped nations with malnourished people presenting symptoms. Even so, it looks like there's opportunity for early treatment. One of the things I do advise is proactivity. My organization, The Wellness Company, offers contagion kits you can pre-purchase. We recently extended these to include an antiviral for bird flu. Importantly, the protocol must be started early.

MA: What other preventative measures can people take to protect themselves from bird flu?

PM: Important data indicates bird flu can be easily killed by iodine. Farm handlers can use a diluted iodine solution, a few drops of iodine in saltwater nasal spray, and/or a few drops of iodine in a scope of Listerine. If I worked on a farm right now, that's what I would do. I personally would suggest doing this at least twice a day, certainly when I came home from handling chickens or being around so much chicken dander.

MA: Changing gears, for those who don’t know, what is the WHO Pandemic Treaty and why is it so dangerous to our nation’s sovereignty?

PM: The World Health Organization behind this initiative is an unelected body, largely supported by a few individuals, including the Gates Foundation, and the Chinese Communist Party, though they do collect money from member nations. Historically, the WHO focused on worldwide health, largely outbreak analysis, data analytics, and in vitro diagnostics.

In my field, the WHO definition of anemia was something useful. However, what we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic was how the WHO aspired for greater and greater power. When they made public statements, most of their instructions were followed by nations, though some were not, which is very interesting.

In November 2020, the WHO said not to use Remdesivir to treat COVID-19 in the hospital. They sponsored a research body called the WHO Solidarity Group. It showed Remdesivir didn't work and, in fact, led to liver toxicity. So, they put out their statement, but nobody listened. In the United States, medical providers continued to administer Remdesivir for COVID-19. It didn't work and actually worsened outcomes for some. Sadly, the U.S. even incentivized the use of Remdesivir. Later, in 2022, the WHO published a paper in The Lancet where they reviewed more data and concluded, ‘We were right from the beginning.’

MA: Can you give another example where the WHO's advice was not followed?

PM: In June 2021, the WHO came out with a statement saying, “Stop PCR testing and COVID testing in people with no symptoms.” (Much of this testing was intended for travel or for work.) The WHO essentially said, “All it's doing is generating false positives.”

Importantly, the yield on this is always less than 1%. Most of the time when the test shows “positive” it's a false positive. People weren’t presenting as sick, so the WHO was right to suggest such curtailments.

However, there were much more perfidious developments with the WHO during the COVID pandemic. I want people to know that in January of 2020, COVID was on the move. Wuhan, China appeared to be the hot zone. (The hot zone is considered the origin of a disease outbreak.) At this point, the WHO said, "We're going to have an investigation. Member nations can have their own teams."

MA: How did the WHO handle the investigation into COVID-19’s origins?

PM: Admiral Brett Giroir, responsible for the testing initiative in the White House Task Force, nominated three eminent independent U.S. scientists go to Wuhan.

But the WHO said, “No. We don't want them. We want Peter Daszak, Head of the EcoHealth Alliance.” Tellingly, Daszak was just on Capitol Hill recently, testifying before the House COVID Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus origins.

It appears Daszak was actually part of the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a conspiracy with Anthony Fauci, Dr. Ralph Baric, and the lead bat lady, Dr. Shi Zhengli. This is all coming out now. Accordingly, the WHO must have known the lab was the origin of SARS-CoV-2. They invited Daszak to go to Wuhan to investigate. But it turns out Daszak had been to that lab many, many times before. He brought plans for the virus to the lab.

Meanwhile, the first thing Daszak says publicly is, “COVID didn't come from the lab. It must have come from somewhere else.” Then, before you know it, Fauci conspires with Kristian Andersen at Scripps, Edward Holmes at the University of Sydney, Francis Collins at the NIH, and Jeremy Farrar at the Wellcome Trust. Together, they wrote a series of fraudulent papers, deceiving the academic world, stating the virus came out of a wet market in Wuhan, China. Instead, it really came out of the lab, and they all knew it. How? They knew about the research.

MA: It’s heartening that the WHO Pandemic Treaty didn’t pass. For now. What are implications of the WHO's actions regarding COVID-19’s origins?

PM: Years after the events I just described, little has changed officially. If you go on almost all major government agency websites, including the National Security Administration, it still says “We have determined with low probability, SARS-CoV-2 probably came out of the Wuhan lab, but it's not a biological weapon.”

Now, why would they say that? They didn't have to make that determination. Also, it's been pointed out to me we actually have a prohibition on the development of biological weapons going back to 1975. (The Biological Weapons Convention—BWC—which effectively prohibits biological and toxin weapons, was opened for signature on 10 April 1972 and entered into force on 26 March 1975). It's never been ratified but I don't think any agency wants to be accused of violating such a policy. So, for now, they're saying it's not a biological weapon.

However, SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated by an investigative team led by Csaba Bence Farkus, MD and colleagues. They published in Military Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal listed on PubMed. The investigators used about three dozen criteria to evaluate SARS-CoV-2, including what the virus does and how it behaves. The conclusion? It is a biological weapon and a biological threat.

So, you know, we are deep into this. The WHO is part of it. The reason why the WHO Pandemic Treaty is such a big deal is that even after all that has come out—the WHO still wants more authority. They want an agreement binding all member states to follow their orders. This would give the WHO incredible power via international law. If ratified, it would provide their unelected global body total dominion over all plants, all animals, and all humans.

Moving forward, the WHO would decide on pressing health decisions affecting the whole planet. Let's take bird flu as an example. If given such sweeping power, the WHO could step in and say, "We’re in charge now. Vaccinate all chickens," or "Recall all beef," or "Do PCR testing in all grocery stores."

They could make all these proclamations unilaterally under international law. They could even use their power to take on their next “health crisis”—Climate Change. Imagine if they had this unprecedented authority to say, “People are burning too many fossil fuels. We must switch to solar power." They could even declare another lockdown—all to save the planet from Climate Change.

Fortunately, we’ve seen tremendous resistance to such a naked power grab. The World Council for Health Worldwide opposes this. Governments the world over do too. This is heartening, especially since there’s been a media blackout in countries like America. Here this issue is almost never discussed by the legacy media. One other positive development is that nearly all the Republican senators in the US Senate have signed a letter telling President Biden, "We should not be in this agreement."

MA: That gives me hope.

PM: Me too.

This concludes Part II. Click here for Part I.