Rationale For Asking Why
Segment #772
In 2020 and early 2021 Peter McCullough, who was a very highly respected cardiologist at Baylor Hospital here in Dallas, was my go to expert to make COVID vaccine decisions for my family. Considering that McCullough, who is about ten years younger than I, took the vaccines himself and also vaccinated his family, he could never logically be accused of being biased against vaccines. As our government working with big Pharm became more aggressive in pushing mRNA vaccines, some in the medical community became more outspoken in recommendning that we insist on real science to support mandates, closing schools and increased social pressures. McCullough, McKary, Battacharya and others came out against mRNA vaccines.
So what’s the point? Science is Never Settled and one must continually ask critical tough questions to ensure progress. Our politicians, media pundits, scientists, and related experts must never be satisfied. That is the mantra of RHK jr and his HHS department. No mandates - just information on which you can base your own decisions
Do a search on YouTube on: RFKjr, HHS, and science and see the what the biased algorithms deliver. Yes censorship still lives in the media.
Dr. Peter McCullough's recent viral "candid answer" usually refers to his testimony during a U.S. Senate hearing (specifically the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in May 2025) and subsequent media appearances.
In these sessions, he has been asked point-blank about the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and whether they should remain on the market. His answer is typically a firm "No," coupled with a claim that a massive percentage of post-vaccination deaths are directly linked to the shots.
The "Candid" Claim: 74% of Deaths?
The centerpiece of McCullough’s recent testimony is a systematic review of autopsies he co-authored. He stated that:
The Claim: In a series of 325 autopsies of people who died after vaccination, 73.9% (often rounded to 74%) of the deaths were adjudicated to be caused by the vaccine.
The Recommendation: Based on this, he has called for a total "recall" of the mRNA vaccines, arguing they are "not safe for human use."
The Scientific & Medical Context
While McCullough’s delivery is often praised by his supporters for its directness, it's important to note the broader medical community's response:
Study Retraction: The specific paper McCullough cites regarding the "74% of deaths" was retracted by the journal The Lancet and later by Forensic Science International due to concerns over its methodology and the criteria used to link deaths to the vaccine.
Expert Consensus: Major health organizations, including the CDC, FDA, and WHO, maintain that the vaccines have saved millions of lives. They point out that while rare side effects like myocarditis exist, the risk of heart complications and death is significantly higher from a COVID-19 infection than from the vaccine.
Data Interpretation: Critics argue that McCullough’s "autopsy series" suffered from selection bias—meaning they primarily looked at cases where a vaccine link was already suspected, rather than a representative sample of all deaths.
Summary of Perspectives
Dr. McCullough's Stance
Medical Consensus StanceVaccines are the primary cause of sudden deaths post-injection.Vaccines are safe for the vast majority; benefits outweigh risks.Calls for an immediate global recall of mRNA products.Recommends boosters for high-risk groups to prevent severe illness.Cites his own autopsy review as definitive proof of harm.Dismisses his study as methodologically flawed and biased.
It’s definitely a moment that highlights the deep divide between "dissident" medical voices and the established public health infrastructure.
The "autopsy study" by Dr. McCullough
This video provides the full context of the Senate testimony where Dr. McCullough presents the specific autopsy data that sparked the "candid answer" headlines.