Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.
The two updates at the beginning of the Mccullough Report of July 19, 2021 sound as though they are contradictory. Dr McCullough first reports that the WHO no longer recommends asymptomatic PCR testing of people. During that report, Dr McCullough says that ““those [asymptomatic individuals] detected to be positive cannot spread the virus.” For one thing, this seems to be in conflict with what Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche has been saying. However, in Dr McCullough’s second update, he is talking about vaccinated people who are getting COVID19. He does not specifically say whether all of these people are symptomatic, but it seems probable that some of the people about whom he is talking did test positive but are asymptomatic (especially if there are false positives and the testing is of little use). He then says that this data suggests that vaccinated people can carry the virus and even transmit it to others with whom they come into contact. Would Dr McCullough please clarify these two announcements because they seem to contradict each other, at least to my ears? We are all trying to understand this and it is difficult when such seemingly opposite statements are made.
I agree, he has had some contradictory statements from the original ones also. His testimony in Congress is far more confident than some of his later statements. I immediately wondered if he is now being threatened and is compromised. I believe his intentions are all pure.
COVID means presents symptoms. (Co)rona (V)irus (D)isease. The definition of disease is a presentation of symptoms or sickness. Maybe that helps understanding the medical terminology a bit better
Greg is correct. The brilliant doctor M. was referring only to ACTIVE, “breakthrough” vaccinated infections. Meaning SYMPTOMATIC. Those cases are growing exponentially, they CAN shed & transmit the virus to others, and the titres (“viral load” levels) are proving to be shockingly high (perhaps higher than in the unvacx’d). Peter has never contradicted himself.
He cites a report about British sailors as evidence that the “vaccines don’t work”. But if you look at this article
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/read-this/hms-queen-elizabeth-how-many-have-covid-on-navy-flagship-and-where-is-the-carrier-strike-group-now-3307762
We learn that the Carrier Strike Group consists of 3700 people, and that 100 of them have tested positive. We’re also told that, “sailors returning from shore leave from Cyprus could be the cause.”
Cyprus, as a country ranks about 40th in the world for per capita cases. Not exactly Covid-free. So 3700 sailors (who tested negative before they boarded) get off the boats in Cyprus and do what sailors do on shore leave (ahem). When they get back on, 100 of them test positive for Covid, but, “that none of the sailors who’ve tested positive for Covid have been seriously affected by the virus.”
100/3700 = 2.7%
If the vaccine is 95% effective, one might expect about 185 positive tests. Instead, we get only 100 mild cases.
But Dr. McCullough cites this incident as evidence that the vaccines don’t work? It strikes me as an ideal experiment proving their efficacy.
That is NOT what vaccine effectiveness means. It relates to relative risk and not absolute risk. So for example, if you have say a 10% risk of catching a disease then a 95% efficiency means that you have a 0.05 x .10 risk of catching it ie 0.005 or 0.5% risk. The risk of catching Covid19 is much less than than 10% partic for healthy young people, but let’s say 1% If that was the case, there should be 37 cases. (Over the whole of the pandemic, less than 10% of the UK population have tested positive). With a vaccine efficiency of 95% there should be 2 cases. 100 cases suggests that not only does it not protect but rather it increases the risk.
This is actually also a wrong presumption. If we look at the diamond princess at the begin of the pendemic, there were a lot more cases on the ship and also deaths. The 1% you are talking about are severe sick patients. On the sailor ship there were only positive PCR-testes 100 mild cases. These we would only count as PCR-positives without being sick (the 10%).
?? No. The 1% is what remains of HEALTHY (Navy-fit) & young probable cases *after* risk-stratifying the old & high risk and removing that group (much higher percentage) from the equation! You cannot compare the Diamond Princess incident. Those passengers were mostly all over 65.