Dr. McCullough, What Did CV-19-Vax Dissidents Get in Exchange for Your Being on Laura Ingraham’s Show?
Suppressors and Face-Saving, as the Tide Turns
Dr. Peter McCullough, I’ll begin by thanking you with all my heart for your tireless work during this whole thing, the thing I call the “Covid/Vax Disaster.” In my judgment, you have shown that all your pre-2020 publications and accolades in medicine, which by some rubrics exceeded those of any other doctor, were no fluke. For you have emerged as the dissident expert who has most documented the extent of the harm done by the CV-19 “vaxxes.” I have sent my readers to your appearances again and again, and I honestly believe you deserve both the Nobel Peace Prize and Medicine Prize.
I also have a doctorate, in political science. Though my areas of greatest expertise are in political philosophy and Great Books, my political instincts are sharper than those of the average bear, and they do have their uses.
Attuned to the behavior of my fellow conservatives working within academia, or adjacent to it, I became aware by late-‘22 that most key scholars and writers in this area, by “key” I mean the ones who control small but ideologically important minor media outlets or journals, were avoiding discussing or mentioning the shocking findings coming from yourself and the hundreds of other dissident experts, about the Disaster generally, but especially about the widespread CV-19-vax harms and deaths. When I pointed this out to them, through posts or private contacts, their typical response was not to say “thanks for the tip, we’ll get working on that,” but rather, to deny they had any responsibility, and, to treat my criticism with the contempt of public silence and non-response. So I became, willy-nilly, the substack writer who has written and thought most about the phenomenon of suppression, and especially, the suppression done by professional conservatives.
Surely, you have thought about this yourself. Why, you must have wondered, have none of the corporate media done serious segments on the claims of the widespread harms? Why does that class include Fox News? The Wall Street Journal? And why in the world do you get regularly accused of being a conspiracy theorist “for the right,” when, with the exceptions of Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Senator Ron Johnson, you can’t seem to find any prestigious conservative leaders in journalism, scholarship, punditry, or politics, to interview you or your fellow dissident experts? As for the ones in journalism, they haven’t even tried to set up a “debate” or “two-sides” story on this!!! Professional conservatives like to kick Dr. Fauci around, and to huff-and-puff about how awful the lockdowns and mandates were, but as to the claims of many deaths from the CV-19 “vaxxes,” they obviously all participate in a deliberate, even coordinated, silence. Almost as much as the progressivists do.
That’s why this little video1 was actually a big deal. It was the first indication that any major figure at Fox, since the firing of Tucker, might begin talking about the CV-19 vax harms. You have to strain your eyes to see the hints of this in this otherwise rather typical segment on Fauci’s most-recent stonewalling before Congress, but they’re there.
First, at 8:30 Ingraham displays and reads a little missive against Fauci from some X guy, one Clifton Duncan, and while most of his points are standard ones for conservatives to make (especially now) against the policies of the lockdown era, he also throws in, at 9:06, “People are injured by a shot they didn’t want.”
Ingraham surely noticed that, and thought about whether she should include it.
Duncan was astute enough to voice no clue as to how many people were injured—and as you know, doctor, it’s some number in the tens of millions--, nor to speak at all of the people killed by a shot they didn’t want.
Still, there it was—Ingraham allowing a mention of the injuries on her show. Even with the suggestion that they are widespread!
Second, Ingraham didn’t interview just anybody about Tony’s latest lie-fest, but you, Dr. McCullough. She surely has other go-to talkers on Fauci/lab-leak/Covid-policy on her list. She knows your reputation and importance. Knows what you’ve said on myocarditis and the shots, and on a dozen other key harm-topics.
And perhaps she also knows that there are conservative voices out there denouncing the class of professional conservatives for betraying elementary principles of both journalism and conservativism, because they cooperate with her kind of suppression of that “side” of your dissident work.
For two years, she has been a stout enemy of the dissidents. One of the most formidable road-blocks to the truth getting out to the public. You’ll recall that Chris Pandolfo and Emerald Robinson once revealed that Fox News and Newsmax, along with all of the MSM, were being paid-off with taxpayer funds, via HHS, to provide positive coverage of the vaxxes. There has never been a Fox apology for not disclosing those funds when they ran such stories, even though as Robinson put it, it was
…the largest and most comprehensive breach of journalistic ethics that has ever occurred. Almost everybody took the money. Almost everybody lied about the vaccines (knowingly or unknowingly)…
Now that the new COVID vaccines have been shown to be not only dangerous and ineffective but highly dangerous, the American public would naturally expect the American news media to do some investigation into the biggest medical experiment in the history of the world.
Robinson’s witness there is now 27 months old!
Not only did Fox not apologize, they didn’t even then do the investigative reporting and pretend to have been living up to their duty to all along. And Robinson was right that by March of ’22, tuned-in Americans, who by then had heard about the Arne Burkhardt autopsies, read about the initial reports of all-cause mortality jumps, considered the analyses of what the URF for VAERS might be on this, and had seen the Richard Hirschman clots, knew darn well that the experimental meds were “highly dangerous.” For all the time since Fox has pretended that all those stories, and all the ones since, have simply not existed; i.e., has been working to keep the number of the tuned-in as low as possible.
So Dr. McCullough, when Ingraham called you with a request to do this segment, there were really only two possible ethical responses on your part:
1.) To confront her, and say “Laura, you’ve been a suppressor, among the most damaging of them, and with this segment, given that it will focus on Fauci and the debate on early spread, and thus once again not be a segment about the claims of widespread injuries and deaths caused by the CV-19 vaxxes, neither interviewing an expert like myself on that topic, nor presenting a debate about that topic, I refuse to be on your show. The tide on this is turning, such that you now see that even Fox will have to cover it; I thus suspect you are trying use my appearance to give your viewers the impression that you’ve been basically on the dissident side. That would be a lie, and I will play no part in helping you make it. You must repent of what you’ve done, of the suppression campaign you’ve been part of, before I will agree to any appearance on your show.”
2.) To bargain with her, and say “Laura, I see what you’re trying to do here by having me on. I don’t know if it’s going to work for you—I’d advise more openness, and some kind of apology. But I am willing to play along, and at some risk to my reputation, if you promise that over the next two months of your show, you will…” And that’s where you lay down your conditions—conditions requiring her to take her viewers some steps out of the fog-bank, by having certain persons on her show, by reporting on certain topics, etc. You know precisely which topics are most in need of being revealed to the older “television-set public,” as well as what kinds of government-data-releases are most needed to test key dissident findings and hypotheses, which pressure from Fox’s huge audience could force the agencies to do.
And yes, Peter, this doctor in political philosophy, and this citizen, is saying that if in no way shape or form you did bargain with her, what you did was unethical.
And yes, I may have readers who hold that no choice besides a.) is even thinkable for an ethical person—I invite them to make their case in the comments.
Now I understand that you couldn’t tell us any specifics about Laura agreeing to anything if you did bargain, so if you did, do send some signals to the dissident community that something occurred, and most of us will say that your behavior here was appropriate.
Maybe, she told you that she would feature your more central work in upcoming segments, but that she needs to introduce you to her viewers gradually?
One can hope!
But please, if you did not bargain—and I mean a bargain with at least some degree of explicitness-- just admit your misstep. Throw up your hands in exasperation at how she gamed you, and then, try to get major dissident figures to agree, going forward, on some general strategic and ethical principles to deploy with suppressor journalists.
Please, do not respond with the very weak argument that any publicity about any of the Covid/Vax Disaster issues is adequate justification for helping the likes of Ingraham try to cover her tracks.
And please, do not take recourse in this line either: “This issue of the failure of conservative journalism is your sort of problem, oh writer about things conservative; I’m just sticking to my medical lane--I’m not political!”
Look, you have said astute things about many of the organizational/political aspects of the Disaster, such as your sketching the likely role of what you’ve called the “Biomedical Complex,” and such as your pointing out the opportunity Trump is missing by not repenting of Warp Speed, etc. You get the political aspects of this.
And that means you can sense the depth and width of the villainy at Fox News. Ingraham’s complicity in its suppression campaign appears to have been total. At any point over the last two years, she could have taken a stand, could have said, for example, “either we cover Senator Johnson’s hearing, or I quit.”
--or, “either we cover Ed Dowd’s book, or I quit.”
--or, “either we cover Haviland’s report on the embalmers’ clots, or I quit.”
--or, “either we cover the McKernan/Buckhaults revelations about plasmid contamination in vials, either we cover McCullough on the Thai myocarditis study, and either we interview some of these victims in the Anecdotals film, or I quit.”
Fill in your own examples, good doctor, of what she could have demanded, for she surely knows about at least some of the hundreds of key dissident stories. And she does have major pull she could exert—she has simply chosen not to.
If it turns out her interview with you really is evidence that she is testing the waters before finally introducing one or two of the key topics to her viewers, do the Fox people think we dissidents are going to celebrate her turn?
Or will they delay the “turning” another six months yet, you know, “after November,” —as we heard in 2022 also—, if we don’t play ball, and make the moves as easy as possible for them?
Or, is the game going to be that those dissidents who behave will be featured in coming segments, but those they sense might use their air-time to highlight the true scope of the Disaster, or to hint that Fox should have covered it years ago, will be left out?
In the sub-headline to this piece, and throughout it, I have suggested that I know that the “tide is turning” now.
I don’t.
Writers like myself and Bill Rice Jr. have tried to push our fellow dissidents out of the pattern of constantly looking for a “damn-now-breaking!” moment. Rice has pointed out how invested the richest elites are in continuing the charade, and I have pointed out how much bigger than any previous example this suppression really is, such that its orchestrators seem prepared to run it indefinitely.
Still, recent turns and half-admissions by media figures like Chris Cuomo, Candace Owens, and recent rhetoric from Congress reps like Marjorie Taylor Greene, suggest that this time around, a significant collapse of the Suppression Campaign really may be underway.
(I may, in coming posts, analyze a few of these sorry instances.)
But I think you can see, Dr. McCullough, that any “Day the Tide Turns” is not really going to be one of celebration, and not only because it has been delayed too long, but because some very ugly things will emerge, along with some tough choices for dissident experts like yourself.
I do not claim to know for certain the best ethical line to strike, as we seek to balance the value of accountability for duty-betrayal by the likes of Ingraham and Fox, against the value of greater public awareness of the extent of the evidence. I have some strong notions, sure, but I also sense that difficult debates are coming upon us, in which good dissidents will find themselves on opposing sides.
But as for your case at present, I do believe that at a minimum you should promise to never provide cover for suppressors when they offer nothing to the dissident cause, not an iota of repentance-work. You should instead strike as many hard bargains as you can with these big media suppressors, and with the politicians who will also be trying to court you who have been engaged in their own kind of suppression. That means at least some instances, of course, of saying “well, you’re not offering anything but money and publicity for myself in return, so no, I won’t be on your show, at your event, or granting you an interview.”
You don’t need them, Peter McCullough, as much as they need you.
Here’s a Rumble link in case YouTube comes to censor the vid; as bad as I’m saying Fox is in this, we now know that truly anything is possible with YT/Google/Alphabet: https://rumble.com/v4zuboo-dr.-mccullough-and-congressman-wenstrup-discuss-dr.-fauci-testimony-with-la.html
It's infuriating that not only are the elites refusing to apologize for the vast harm that has been caused by Fauci and the COVID / VAX conspiracy but they are also praising him and apologizing to him. Clifton Duncan's X (Twitter) post only scratches the surface of the harm caused by the COVID / VAX conspiracy. I agree that Ingram and other "Conservatives" need to tell the truth about COVID / VAX harm instead of pontificating about secondary problems.