HealthFeedback.org inaccurate 'fact check' of Joe Rogan Covid interview with Dr. McCullough

Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough
Photo from: American Journal of Kidney Diseases

The following is a news analysis.

One strategy commonly deployed by establishment public health officials and other vaccine interests has been to marginalize mainstream medical professionals who go off-the-narrative on Covid-19.

Highly-respected experts in public health, at academic institutions, and at hospitals, can now count on being carved out of the “mainstream” and marginalized if their research or expert opinions go against the desired narrative. Part of this is accomplished by powerful and well-funded forces using Big Tech, media, fake “fact checks,” and other strategies.

One group that Big Tech relies upon for scientific fact checks, but frequently proves to be incorrect, is a blog called HealthFeedback.org. The group’s “science editor,” Flora Teoh, recently jumped on the bandwagon with an inaccurate “fact check” of cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.

McCullough is a well-regarded expert who became targeted by a propaganda campaign early on in the pandemic when his scientific views and opinions differed with what U.S. officials wanted the public to believe.

The HealthFeedback.org analysis is exemplary of how information is twisted to accomplish a particular propaganda goal.

Flora Teoh, Science Editor
Photo from: HealthFeedback.org

Teoh claims that McCullough made numerous “inaccurate” claims during an interview on December 13 with podcaster Joe Rogan on “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

In fact, Teoh’s information suffers from the very shortfalls she accuses McCullough’s information of having.

Teoh says that McCullough was “inaccurate” in claiming the pandemic was planned; the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental; previously infected people have “permanent immunity”; VAERS shows vaccines killed thousands of people, and vaccine-induced spike protein causes damage.

Instead of accurately reflecting that there is legitimate scientific debate among prestigious authorities on many of these Covid-related topics, Teoh inaccurate pretends to know, with authority, that a particular point is true or false.

This is the same syndrome that caused many public health officials and those in the media to inaccurately report that the lab origin theory of Covid-19 had been “debunked” early on, when it had not even been investigated.

In claiming McCullough is being inaccurate, Teoh states “The COVID_19 vaccines aren’t experimental.” While she is free to give that opinion, she should attribute it as such. There are many scientific experts who believe otherwise: that the vaccines qualify, quite clearly, as being experimental since they were put on the market without the normal approval process, in a wildly-collapsed time-frame, without the normal study processes. Further, CDC and other scientific experts acknowledge that the extend of side effects of the vaccines are still unknown because they have not been tested and used long enough to know. That is why the labeling and warnings worldwide have been constantly changing and are under assessment currently.
Teoh claims McCullough is further “inaccurate” because the vaccines’ “safety and efficacy were demonstrated in clinical trials that involved tens of thousands of people.” She is free to give the opinion that the clinical trials proved the vaccines are safe and effective, but she omits important context that there is a great deal of scientific debate on that point, particularly considering the collapsed nature of the development and study processes. Further, it is undisputed that numerous safety issues that allegedly did not show up in the clinical trials have since emerged.
Teoh challenges the notion that some people who get Covid have “permanent immunity,” since reinfections have occurred, but doesn’t give the same fact-checking standard to vaccine efficacy and safety: both infections and vaccine injuries have occurred in the vaccinated.

Teoh puts several other McCullough claims under “unsupported,” but, herself, provides no proof that his claims are untrue.

Teoh says “No evidence was presented for the assertions that the pandemic was planned.” Certainly, she is free to have the opinion that the pandemic was unplanned; yet her statement provides no proof that it was unplanned. Therefore, her statement suffers from the very shortfall that she accuses McCullough’s statement from suffering.
Likewise with Teoh challenging the statement that public health authorities are conspiring to prevent people from getting early treatment: There is a significant body of scientists and other experts who hold the opinion that there has been a plan to steer people away from, and even controversialize, therepeutics. Teoh may disagree, but she does not provide proof that public health authorities did not conspire to prevent people from getting early treatment.
Lastly, Teoh says “there’s also no evidence for the claim that the spike protein generated by mRNA vaccination is dangerous.” Some scientists disagree, and there have been scientific papers written on the topic. In any event, Teoh provides no evidence proving that the spoke protein is not dangerous; in fact, experts say it’s too early to know with any certainty that would be the case. They say certain safety issues may only come to light after a number of years.

In the end, the best way to view these types of fact checks, censorship, and official disparagement of certain scientific studies, thoughts and views is to read them as part of an organized, propaganda effort to stop people from having and considering certain information.

Prior to 2016, other than some vaccine and pharmaceutical interests that were effectively controlling media and social media narratives, there was not a widespread, effective movement to censor information and entirely remove from public discourse and the internet those who dared to go off-the-narrative. Various views, data and studies were invited and accessible, and free-thinking Americans were allowed to make up their own minds about issues.

Now, many Americans have been convinced to support the idea that their information should be censored and shaped by third parties that are often influenced by unseen financial interests, and that they–the public–should not be allowed to see or hear certain things.

That trend has proven to be remarkably harmful in the Covid era with many of these information-shapers getting behind and advancing disinformation, while squelching factual information of importance to so many.