Dr. Peter McCullough Interview with Mike Adams | “All to prepare the population for mass vaccination.” [Transcript]

“It’s astonishing how dangerous the vaccines are.”

In keeping with providing written transcripts for those who prefer to read text as opposed to watching videos, I have transcribed the following interview between Mike Adams and Dr. Peter McCullough.

Another in-depth/informative video with Dr. Peter McCullough that is transcribed in full can be found here: Dr. Peter McCullough / John Leake – Full Interview [Transcript]

Thank you to Mike Adams and Dr. Peter McCullough. While all of the information is incredibly helpful and insightful, I did highlight some pertinent topics that were discussed and some embellishments were added for emphasis.

 

Also thank you to all the doctors/scientists/researchers, etc. who have been brave enough to stand up for their patients and for humanity in general. Your bravery and integrity speaks volumes of your character and exemplifies what it means to be a strong, compassionate individual, especially in the midst of adversity and vitriol.

Mike Adams: “Welcome everyone to another extraordinary interview here on Brighteon Conversations. Remember, we are the platform where we can exercise free speech that is not allowed on the major big tech platforms. And today we have a first time guest, but you’ve seen him in other interviews, or perhaps you haven’t since some of those interviews have been banned.

But, his name is Dr. Peter McCullough, and he is just an extraordinary individual. He’s a professor of medicine, Texas A&M, Dallas; he’s published I think 42 peer reviewed papers on covid. He’s been on the forefront of trying to help save lives in this and he has a very powerful and very timely message for what’s happening with medicine and science, and covid.

So Dr. McCullough, it’s an honor to have you on, thank you for joining me today.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Yeah, thanks for having me, Mike, it’s great to be here.”
Mike Adams: “Well, it’s great to have you on. You’ve been one of the most requested guest for our audience; they’ve been just really enthralled by what you have said in other interviews. Can you give us kind of a summary of where you think we are right now with covid, and the failed response by government authorities around the world? Why are they not doing the right thing?”

Safe treatment for COVID is available – NO VACCINE NEEDED (and in certain cases, treatment isn’t even needed)

Dr. Peter McCullough @1:49: “Well, a quick summary is that doctors, independent doctors innovated and learned how to treat the virus. So your audience can really settle down and understand that if someone’s over age 50 with multiple medical problems, they can be treated with a standard multi drug protocol plus nutraceuticals, get through the illness just fine, and avoid hospitalization and death. So we’ve taken the fear out of covid-19, we treat it at home.

Individuals under age 50, no medical problems, they can breeze through the illness, no treatment needed, unless severe symptoms develop, and again it just it’s nutraceutical bundle, which is probably modestly helpful. The drugs that really helped, I mean, we used EUA monoclonal antibodies, the Regeneron products – all doctors can make a call to their local emergency room, patients get an antibody infusion, just like president Trump got. You saw how he breezed through covid, that can be done. So if I got a senior call me today, I’d have him go to the Baylor ER, get an antibody infusion, they’ll breeze right through it. We used drugs in sequence, oral drugs to reduce viral replication, we use inhaled and oral steroids – “

Mike Adams: “Can you list some of those medications, please? Because people want to write these down.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Right, so the first thing we do is we use nutraceuticals, that would be zinc, 50 milligrams / vitamin D, 5,000 International Units / vitamin C, 3,000 milligrams / quercetin 500 milligrams, twice a day – that’s a good nutraceutical bundle right there. Probably modestly helpful and actually there are some supportive data. For the antibodies we have a Regeneron product that’s given IV and it’s given over an hour, with an hour observation down in the ER; you can go in by schedule in the first couple days of illness, but to get it done.

If someone is admitted, on the other side of the admission we can actually give a GlaxoSmithKline monoclonal antibodies. These are very helpful drugs and patients should demand them. So they should ask for these drugs, they shouldn’t be a mystery to get them. Just ask for the Regeneron antibody infusion – it’s what president Trump got – “

Mike Adams: “What’s your take on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Yeah, so after the antibody infusion, then we can use oral drugs. And we have hydroxychloroquine, over 200 supportive studies, 200 milligrams, twice a day; ivermectin about 60 supportive studies there, and we can use about 18 milligrams a dose every other day for 3 doses. And then outside the United States favipiravir. We combine them with azithromyacin or doxycycline, to reduce bacterial super infection and to reduce overlap between what’s called atypical organisms, and then we use inhaled budesonide, 800 milligrams twice a day – micrograms twice a day. If on day 5 respiratory symptoms, we use oral prednisone for about a quick 5 days, no taper. We use a drug called colchicine once a day, for 30 days. Reduces inflammation. And then really on the backend we use aspirin, 325 milligrams a day as a blood thinner; then high risk patients we use lovenox.

So the doctor will decide with the patient which kind of program it’s going to be, but it’s typically things to reduce viral replication, things to reduce inflammation, and then thrombosis. None of the drugs are individually essential. There are protocols where no hydroxychloroquine and no ivermectin is used, and just the anti-inflammatories and blood thinners are used. That’s the South African Pedi approach. Others kind of, kind of feature hydroxy or ivermectin – that’s fine too.

Access to doctors treating COVID (free services available)

Peter McCullough @5:30: But what the listeners need to know is that there are adequate signals of benefit and acceptable safety to use drugs in combination. The only people who get admitted to the hospital and die, are the ones who get no outpatient treatment. So we have to demand treatment. We have the American Physicians and Surgeons, AAPS, online’s got a free guide. Download it, everybody should have it; it’s been downloaded millions of times. We have a list of treating doctors.

There’s another wonderful site called the Frontline Critical Care Consortium, FLCC. They also have a great network of doctors. We have 4 national telemedicine services. The featured one is called MyFreeDoctor.com. And that’s a free service! You don’t need your insurance or anything. You just give a donation if you want to. Doctors work 24 by 7, they will take your intake, they’ll get the medicines called in to your pharmacy. If your pharmacy won’t fill them, we’ll use a mail order pharmacy, we’ll get the drugs to you – get going, and nobody has to suffer through this illness. There are 15 regional telemedicine services, 500 treating doctors, It’s called Sequence Multi Drug Therapy, it’s published in the peer review literature – been used millions of times.

Let me say this much, this has really kicked in the early part of January. We crushed our curve – that’s what crushed our curve. That was before anybody was vaccinated. We crushed our curve. Since that time we’ve been flat, kind of flat at leveling out through the pandemic. Mexico City crushed their curve with the early treatment. Down in South America, countries did; India just crushed their curve with early treatment. Early treatment treats the problem! Masks and vaccines don’t actually treat the illness. We need to treat the illness with multiple drugs.”

Huge censorship from big tech/media and health agencies | Medical dictatorship

Mike Adams @7:11: “Well how shocked are you in observing the official response to this? How shocked are you as a trained, published physician, who has the, the right motivation to help save lives, to help people get well, to reduce human suffering… This is supposed to be the moral code of being a physician. How shocked are you of the suppression of all the things that you just mentioned? From big tech censoring the mention and the CDC censoring, and the WHO censoring – why didn’t we have a national response that said, “Hey, let’s use what works.”?

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Well, we should have. We should have had doctors in charge who actually are real doctors who are board certified who are taking care of patients with covid-19. We needed doctors who had courage, who actually behaved like trauma surgeons. We don’t need doctors on TV who are not working in teams, who are not board certified, who have never seen a covid patient. That’s what America in the world has been looking at here and it’s really an atrocity.

You know, doctors always work in teams. We should never have a single doctor say anything on TV. Get a team! Get a team. We work in teams in rounds. We’ve seen no international collaboration. Do you know, I gave […] rounds today by webex to France. And we were collaborating. We were exchanging ideas. Americans have not seen any exchange of ideas between doctors on TV. They’ve basically seen a medical dictatorship. From one person. And Americans should be very alarmed on where’s the teams of doctors, where’s the international collaboration.

You know here I’m sitting here in Texas and you know a few hours south of us they’re handing out treatment kits by the millions! In baggies. And Texas would never know about it. Because there’s not any window to the outside world.”

Deliberate suppression of medical treatment and malfeasance in the health industry

Mike Adams @8:57: “Now, you’ve published many, many papers. You’re one of the most prolific writers in the area of internal medicine, and your work is sided by thousands of other studies and papers. So your history here of research and medicine is unassailable.

And what you just said about a medical dictatorship seems so true when last year, remember when states and I believe Michigan was one of them, actually outlawed the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine for covid. Why would a state government criminalize – oh, and by the way, that happened after the Lancet published that, later retracted, a bogus study that said hydroxychloroquine caused heart tissue/scarring and so on. But this seems like a medical dictatorship as you said, prohibiting the practice of good medicine by doctors who are on the frontlines. Would that be an accurate assessment?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “It’s accurate. Someone just sent me a treatment protocol from one of the Baylor Scott & White hospitals in our health system in central Texas. Kind of right applies to you. And that protocol to this day says ‘Do not use hydroxychloroquine to treat covid-19.’

We have 200 supportive studies. Lancet published a fraudulent paper. The FDA, based on the fraudulent paper said ‘do not use hydroxychloroquine’. Here we are, a year later, and hospital treatment guidelines say don’t use hydroxychloroquine. No one reviewed the literature. No one updated the literature. We have 200 studies. There’s a 30,000 patient study from Iran showing a giant reduction in hospitalization and death with hydroxychloroquine based program.

So what you’re seeing here is bad research. It’s bad medicine. People aren’t updated. There should be weekly updates. Monthly guidelines updates. Here, we’re frozen in time, fraudulent paper, ill-advised guidance from the FDA, and frozen in time with no contemporaneous review. None. It’s malfeasance.

Mike Adams: “Well that’s the thing. It seems, at least in my assessment, they deliberately pushed a fraudulent study through the Lancet, and I believe also in the New England Journal of Medicine, knowing that the retractions might never really happen. Like they’ve established now that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and it’s hard to ever get that taken back out of the medical literature or even in the minds of the people who rely on that literature. So it’s kind of like, you know, the New York Times publishing something that’s false and then the retraction comes on page 8 in small print, you know, a day later – nobody sees the retraction.”

Intentional corruption for the purpose of hurting people | Attack on hydroxychloroquine

Dr. Peter McCullough @11:36: “I agree with this. I agree with you. I think it was intentional. I think the entire action was intentional and it was aligned to do harm. It was aligned to hurt people. And hydroxychloroquine became the focal point of how individuals with intent to do harm could do harm.

You know hydroxychloroquine, the second largest hydroxychloroquine plant outside of Taipei, was mysteriously burned to the ground. We heard words of hydroxychloroquine being burned at night in the pharmacies across Africa. In Queensland, Australia, in August, or – in early in April of last year, Queensland, Australia, they put it on the books that they would put a doctor in jail if a doctor tried to help a patient with hydroxychloroquine.

Now come on! I prescribe this every day. Rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, we can give it to pregnant women. I mean we prescribe hydroxychloroquine – you can give it to patients with dry eyes and other rheumatologic conditions. And suddenly in covid-19, we can’t use a simple, safe drug to help people?

Something Americans should think: something is REALLY wrong. We should have been, you know, we had the right idea – we stockpiled hydroxychloroquine, we had it ready to go, but then we didn’t release it from the stockpile! We made it impossible to use.”

Mike Adams: “Well, you just hinted at something, I want to explore this a little more deeply with you, that you got to intent. You believe that the intent was to cause harm. And I think most of our viewers would absolutely agree with you. And I do too, although I’m here asking your view, not really my views here today, but, if their intent was to cause harm and not just complacency or bureaucracy or inadvertent mistakes, what does this mean about this, the institution of medicine and science in the context of this pandemic? I mean, why aren’t they trying to save as many lives as possible? What’s going on here?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “It’s in the minds of doctors. In fact, there was a doctor who has done some of the, really just, I think, probably low-quality research, some very poor randomized trials that were stopped early – and they always stop early. Hydroxychloroquine is always a little bit ahead, and it’s winning; they stop early and say, ‘Oh, there’s no difference. Hydroxychloroquine didn’t do anything.’ Well, there’s a doctor who’s been leading some of these studies, he put out a message on twitter and said, ‘Oh, most good doctors have moved on from hydroxychloroquine.’

It’s like, you know, why state that, when hydroxychloroquine is a worldwide standard. It’s a standard, it’s always been a standard in Europe, in Rome, in Italy, it has a whole program called Treatment Domiciliary at Home. [Erik Rimaldi – sp?], who leads that effort, they’ve had major rallies in piazzas all over Italy, declaring ZERO hospitalizations with an early approach to hydroxychloroquine. Thousands and thousands of people. It’s standard in Iran. It’s standard in Russia. Used widely in India.

And you know what? When the first wave of covid-19 hit, in March of last year, that was the Wuhan version. That was the wild-type. That was the most serious version. You know, covid’s gotten easier and easier to treat. But the most serious wave, we had a very little blip in the United States. You know why? Because we had a massive use of hydroxychloroquine. It was then when agencies tried to kill it. That’s when the epidemic got out of control. We should have stuck with hydroxy hard all the way through. And you know, ivermectin works fine. We don’t use them alone. But when we sync them in with aspirin and steroids, blood thinners and colchicine, the program works tremendously. 85% reductions in hospitalizations and death.” 

Mike Adams: “Well, how much do you think a profit motive is behind this? I mean, do you get the feeling that if hydroxychloroquine were a new, on-patent drug, that just came out, Johnson & Johnson let’s say, and it were a thousand dollars a dose, and all governments offered to buy it at a thousand dollars a dose, do you get the feeling that suddenly it would be a miracle cure in the media if that were the case?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “No I don’t, believe it or not. I don’t think it’s a profit motive. You know, Merck, in Santa Fe, have had oral drugs. In development. They’re a part of Operation Warp Speed. They’ve been on slow gear with these oral drugs. Slow gear. You’d think if these companies wanted to make some money on oral drugs, then these drug companies, they know how to do big trials. They know how to move fast. Why are they moving at a snail’s pace? You know, we are overloaded with millions of cases of covid-19. You know what we needed? We needed 20,000 person outpatient trials of multiple drugs. And we needed it last year. Nobody did that. And believe me, they all had the resources. So I don’t think it’s profit driven.”

MOTIVE: Mass vaccination | “A NEEDLE IN EVERY ARM”

Mike Adams @16:30: “What do you think is the motive of this suppression of the treatments?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “I think it was all to prepare the population for mass vaccination. I think it was very intentional, to maximize the amount of fear, suffering, hospitalization and death, to prepare the population to accept mass vaccination. And when mass vaccination came out, they didn’t say targeted, or just for the seniors, or just for the maximum benefit is, they said ‘A NEEDLE IN EVERY ARM’. And they meant it.

And nowadays, that’s all you hear about, morning/noon/and night, is vaccination. You don’t see a word about treatment in the hospital, any updates on treatment; it’s vaccination morning/noon/and night, and people are dreaming of mass vaccination. We have doctors screaming at patients telling them they have to be vaccinated. Doctors saying that only vaccinated patients can be in their waiting room. I mean, everything has been set up on this vaccine. There’s been Saturday Night Live skits, about the vaccine. Since when do we do that? Vaccines are never that exciting!”

McCullough Report available on americaoutloud.com

Mike Adams @17:36: “I want to ask you more details about the vaccine, I just want to remind our viewers here that you have a broadcast; it’s on americaoutloud.com, americaoutloud.com. It’s the McCullough Report – is that once a week, or what’s the schedule on that?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Yeah, it comes out – so it’s run twice on weekends, and then it comes out on the iheartradio and the big podcast platforms – what I do is I bring in experts, who are absolutely – and we go through their backgrounds, so America knows these are the top people, all over the world, and we do interviews. You know, I try to go 8 to 10 minutes and really get the key information out. And I’ve interviewed absolutely the top people in order to break through to America.

“We are going to squash any valid scientific information on treatment and on safety and just mass promote the vaccine.”

Peter McCullough @18:21: Because we have what’s called the Trusted News Service. I hope everybody understands this. We have an overt censoring program that all the major media signed on to at the beginning of December. And the agreement was, that they were going to mass promote the vaccine, and they were going to suppress all information on treatment and vaccine safety. And everybody signed off on it. Everybody did! So MSNBC, NBC, CNN, twitter! Youtube! They have explicitly said, ‘we are going to squash any valid scientific information on treatment and on safety and just mass promote the vaccine.’ And that’s what we got.”

Mike Adams: “Yeah, and you’re exactly right. It’s just been propaganda and a couple of things that I’ve noticed in the media about vaccines, is number 1, any vaccine injuries are always designated ‘rare’, no matter how many people they impact. Such as the myocarditis affecting young healthy men, right now.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Can I address that, because I agree with you. It has been said to be rare – any claim that something is rare means, that you have to go through every person vaccinated and see if they got it! You just can’t take a small number of cases that got pushed forward and divide it by everybody who got it and, and on priority, say that people who on the denominator didn’t get it, that’s not true.

So last night I was on Fox news, and the announcer said, ‘Well what about, you know these are rare cases.’ I said, “Listen, there’s 387,000 safety reports with the vaccines. That’s more than any medical product in history by a mile.” And he goes, ‘Well these are rare.’ I said, “Well, I don’t think so. That’s not rare.” So the answer is with these vaccines, none of these things are rare. In fact, they are far too common and it’s worrisome.”

Mike Adams: “Well, and it shows the intellectual dishonesty. Because they can use that word ‘rare’ in whatever way they want. You can bet that if a dietary supplement were causing this number of reports, it would be called a danger to the public and common. It wouldn’t be rare.”

Excessive deaths from COVID vaccine shows it is NOT “safe and effective”

Dr. Peter McCullough @20:31: “Well let me give you some standards: 1976, Swine flu pandemic, 25 deaths, 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, it was 22 million people vaccinated, it’s off the market. Ok.

A drug, typically a drug, 5 unexplained deaths, gets a black box warning for death. 50 unexplained deaths, off the market! Ok? With all the vaccines combined, 500 million shots a year, 70 vaccines, we get about a 150 or 160 deaths that roll in, not related in time to the vaccine over the course of a year.

Covid-19, we’re at 6,100 deaths; 44% occur in the 48 hours after the shot. And we started to see the mortality diverge from expected, on January 22nd, and there’s been NO safety report from the FDA or NIH. Or nothing on the media. No press briefing on vaccine safety. None!

Americans should be alarmed that we have not had a press briefing on safety. We should be very alarmed! The vaccines, it may not work, but it should be safe! And if we don’t have any update or press briefing on safety, no publication of safety, I think Americans should be greatly alarmed.”

Mike Adams: “Well, but the other thing that the media does is they say, even when they acknowledge some adverse reactions, they say the benefits are worth the risks. But, as you know, as a scientist yourself, when you’re talking about an age group that only has maybe a one in a million chance of mortality from the vaccine – I’m sorry, from covid, what possible benefit can there be that outweighs any substantial risk, right? There’s no benefit to taking it in those age groups.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “No, there’s some countries that really – for instance, Germany, is pretty similar to the United States, I want to say maybe they have 30% of people vaccinated? They’re just kind of focusing on people over 65. I think Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida had the right thing. Remember, he didn’t fool around. He got the people over 65 vaccinated then the rest of it.

It’s very hard at this point in time with the amount of safety and amount of neurologic damage, heart damage, blood clots and deaths with these vaccines, it’s very hard to find any group that would benefit right now. I was, you know, encouraging the vaccine to my patients, about 70% of them got it in December/January/February, and right now based on the safety, I can’t in good conscience – I can’t, you know, I can’t recommend it to anybody. Maybe on a case by case basis.

There’s going to be a far safer vaccine coming called NovaVax, and NovaVax… [indistinguishable] and should be much much better in terms of safety. We’re hoping that they can speed this one in and phase out the first generation of vaccines.”

Deceptive terminology used to mislead the public. Vaccine consent form says “This is not approved.”

Mike Adams @23:37: “So another thing that I’ve noticed that the media doing on this is they conflate emergency authorization use with quote “approval” of the vaccine. So you’ll see newscasters tell their audiences things like, ‘Well, the FDA has approved all these vaccines’, but they haven’t, really. It hasn’t gone through the long-term clinical trials, it hasn’t been declared safe or efficacious, either one. What – do you think this is just part of the deliberate deception, or what?

Dr. Peter McCullough:Yeah, I think it is deliberate, deceptive. Americans who have gotten the vaccine, and 45% of Americans have gotten the vaccine, so that’s about half of your audience, Mike, they’ve signed the consent! They know exactly what the vaccine consent says. It says ‘This is not approved.’ It says ‘We don’t know if this is going to work.’ It says ‘It’s investigational.’ Means it’s research. Means you’re signing up for research. And they collect your personal information to track you. And it says ‘We don’t know what the side effects are.’ They can range all the way from a sore arm to death. And that’s what the consent form – 45% of Americans signed up for this.

Genetic gene delivery vaccines create dangerous spike protein that cause damage to cells, blood vessels and cause blood clots.

Peter McCullough @24:47: The vaccines that they signed up for are considered genetic gene delivery medicines. Ok? They are genetic, biologically active products. Ok? The typical vaccine is either a protein, or a dead virus, or an inactivated virus. It’s never a gene transfer substance. So whoever signed up for this, and 45% of your listeners signed up for this, they took Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J, they took a genetic product. Ok? That product transfers genetic material into your cells. That’s what it did. And then inside the cells, and there’s cells all over the body, they produce a dangerous protein called the spike protein. And wherever the genetic material goes, and we know, it goes to the brain, it goes to the heart – it produces the spike protein, which is inside cells, damages those cells, it damages the surface of those cells, causes inflammation, and then from there it travels in the body for about 2 weeks causing damage to blood vessels and causing blood clots.

So Senator Johnson, last night, had a townhall for vaccine injury victims. And there were dozens of them and they told America about how they’ve sustained brain damage. Or heart damage from the vaccine. And this has occurred in thousands and thousands of people. 21,000 people have been hospitalized after the vaccine. 27% of them are below age 50. It’s astonishing how dangerous the vaccines are.

Mike Adams: “Yeah, and you just mentioned several bombshells there that I want to get into. You referred to the bio-distribution study – one of which I’m aware is out of Japan; and the mainstream vaccine industry claims that these spike protein nanoparticles do not circulate throughout the body, but the studies show they do. Think there’s another pharmacokinetic study as well that establishes that.

What you just mentioned is huge. I mean, just based on that research alone, it seems like the FDA should pull the emergency authorization and say, ‘Wait a second, we need to study this in more depth. We can’t inject people if this is circulating throughout the entire body.’ But they’re not doing that. What’s going on?”

Nanoparticles in the vaccines concentrating in the ovaries – causing drop in fertility

Dr. Peter McCullough @27:11: “The vaccines that Johnson & Johnson/Pfizer/Moderna have a very dangerous mechanism action. We cannot have genetic substances circulating in our body in lipid nanoparticles or other forms of matrix nanoparticles and go to our brain! We can’t do that! I mean, that cannot be allowed. It’s a dangerous mechanism action.

The Japanese did not trust Pfizer, and when Pfizer said it stayed locally in the arm, the Japanese said ‘We don’t trust you. Show us where this goes’, and it was a biodistribution study done of the nanoparticles, not the messenger RNA, but the nanoparticles, and they went everywhere. They did wash out of organs in a couple of days but they hyper-concentrated in the ovaries.

In Europe, they didn’t trust Moderna on fertility. And they asked them, ‘What happens to fertility with Moderna?’ They did an animal study and Moderna dropped fertility.

The FDA, Mike, told Pfizer/Moderna and J&J,  ‘No pregnant women. No women of child-bearing potential who cannot assure contraceptive.’ They did that for a reason. They knew the vaccines should not be used in young women and they knew that.”

Mike Adams: “And yet the vaccine is being promoted for pregnant women all across America today by the medical establishment, but just getting back to that study, as I recall, one of the other areas where the nanoparticles tended to cluster was in the adrenals. So now we’re talking about a hormonal interference which could affect fertility, it could affect mental states, moods, it could affect SO many things. Right? In the body. Unknown effects.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Right. Well there have been nanoparticle studies, there was one from China published about 8 years or so ago that tested these nanoparticles. And they asked, ‘Where did they go?’ And they made a brilliant nice rainbow of all the organs where the nanoparticles showered, and they did show that they go to the ovaries. So the point is, and the adrenals, so the point is, the FDA, Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, they KNEW or they should have known that these particles are gonna hit these vital organs. And then when they drop their genetic payload then they’re going to start producing the spike protein and damaging cells in those organs. So it was not surprising when young women were ill-advised and took the vaccines they started having problems with their periods. That was not unexpected.

“These vaccines are directly killing babies in the first trimester and it is absolutely atrocious. Horrible!”

Peter McCullough @29:41: In a New England Journal of Medicine paper of pregnancy, women who took the vaccine, the authors concluded that it was safe to give the vaccine in pregnancy. Now, no woman carried the baby 9 months because the vaccines haven’t been around 9 months, but they looked at different windows of time, and they divided all the pregnancy loss rates by the largest denominator possible, so it was really false reporting. When we zeroed in on the first trimester, and just divided by those who got the vaccine in the trimester, not those who got it later on, there was an 83% loss in fetal – in the babies. So these vaccines are directly killing babies in the first trimester and it is absolutely atrocious. Horrible!

@30:27: [indistinguishable] – college right now, is recommending that women, pregnant women, take the covid-19 vaccine. Pregnant women can breeze right through covid-19. There has been some bad outcomes, but it is very treatable with our drugs, we can even use hydroxychloroquine through pregnancy, we can use prednisone and other drugs. No woman should EVER take the risk with the covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy. Period! If the FDA, Pfizer/Moderna didn’t allow it in their clinical trials, it should be – not be allowed in practice today.”

Mike Adams: “Yeah, and that’s – you’re talking common sense medicine, here. But it seems like common sense has been thrown out the window. But I’m so glad you brought this up, because it seems like beginning in about maybe 6 months and continuing on we may see a collapse in birth rates, and maybe ongoing infertility problems. But that brings up the obvious question: do you think that there is an infertility or long-term population reduction agenda? Many people believe that. Lots of my guests have discussed that. Is that something that you subscribe to, or is it – we don’t have enough data yet to conclude that?”

Addressing “conspiracy theories” and the brainwashing of the public

Dr. Peter McCullough @31:32: “You know, I can’t – I’ve been so focusing on the medical response and taking care of my patients. I know others are working on, you know, people have called them “conspiracy theories”; the, you know the rapper, RC rapper, says, you know, it’s not a conspiracy theory if it keeps coming true. And I’m not going to comment on conspiracy theories but if you ask me, do you think these vaccines are going to have an impact on fertility, I think the answer is yes.

We’ve already seen that with the Moderna application and now with the fetal loss. Data fairly calculated from the New England Journal of Medicine study, there’s no doubt about it. Pregnant women are going to lose their babies if they take the vaccine. And it’s worse than that. Once they’ve conceived and they’re breastfeeding, we now have events in the Vaccine Adverse reporting system where women take the vaccine, they generate the spike protein, and we infer the spike protein goes through the milk and kills the baby.

So these vaccines need to stay away from babies and mothers and women who are trying to conceive. I mean, that can’t be a more clear message.

You know, women are concerned about drinking half a glass of wine during pregnancy. How in the world can they take a shot of a wildly experimental, unproven, unsafe vaccine for the first time? How could they ever do it? It’s almost as if Americans and doctors and everybody are just brainwashed together. They are brainwashed! They’ve been propagandized and they are blindly accepting something that they should just stay away from.”

Doctors getting silenced, threatened, fired for speaking out against the narrative

Mike Adams @32:58: “Well I think most of our audience would agree with that. And by the way, you mentioned earlier about the percentage of people getting the vaccine, and I think I’m proud to say close to zero percent of our audience has taken this vaccine. Very close to zero percent. Because they’re well educated and well informed.

But I want to ask you about possible pushback because, you know, many doctors have been threatened, censored, fired for speaking out. They’ve been silenced. Even early on. I remember New York City, back in late March of last year, one particular doctor was saying, ‘Woah! We need to be treating this as an oxygen deprivation condition affecting hemoglobin.’ And he was silenced! And this has happened ever since then. What kind of pushback are you getting? Are they trying to silence you from doing interviews like this?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “No, I have to tell you, I have over 600 peer-review publications. I’m the editor of two major journals, senior associate editor of a third. I’m the most published person in my field in the world. I’ve had covid-19 myself. I’ve suffered through it. My wife’s side of the family, we’ve had fatalities in her side of the family. I can tell you right now, I am supremely qualified to give my opinions. I have the right to give my opinions. And anybody who thinks they can threaten me or take me on, bring it on. No one’s had the guts to do it. And they would absolutely, positively be pummeled. And be ashamed.

Lack of courage and lack of compassion in the health care industry | Long line of shame

Peter McCullough @34:25: In fact, I’ve had a couple people in Indiana, I think they feel shame. They feel ashamed for their lack of courage and their lack of ability to compassionately help patients. Patients cried out for help. 600,000 of them cried out for help. Doctors, health care systems, and clinics turned them down. They suffered. Then they were hospitalized. They went into isolation, Mike, they never saw their families again and then they died.

We have a long, long line of shame. And there’s a lot of people walking that line of shame. Most of them can’t look me in the eye. I’ll tell you right now. They cannot look me in the eye. They are so ashamed of themselves.”

Awakening out of the trance | Facing the horrific blind actions of “just following orders”

Mike Adams @35:05: “Do you think that there will be, at some point, looking back, some kind of awakening? In previous interviews you’ve described some doctors as being almost like they’re in a trance. Or under a spell of some kind. Do you think that they will be able to awaken from that trance and look at what happened and recognize that that was not a high integrity practicing of medicine?”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Some people have said that the awakening out of a trance will be like a Nazi war crime doctors. Where they’ll somehow come out of their trance and they’re going to be terrified at what they did. And I would bring obstetricians right to the very front. And when they come out of their trance and they realize in horror that they were advising pregnant women to get injections of genetic biological – these are gene transfer platforms. Wildly experimental, that produce in an uncontrolled manner, a dangerous protein for the human body that gouges blood vessels, causes blood clots.

We KNOW this. We’ve known that this is a blood-clotting illness for a long time. That they advise this – I think these obstetricians are going to wake up in a cold sweat and they’re going to be HORRIFIED with what they recommended! They are going to be – and it’s going to be – I gotta tell you, we have years of reckoning on this. We have years of reckoning. There is a line of shame that these doctors and nurses and mid-level providers, and clinics, and hospitals will walk, that is atrocious.

In pregnancy, above ALL conditions, it’s “primum non nocere”, we will never do harm to a pregnant woman. We would, you know, we have drugs. We have pregnancy classes, A, B and C. We would NEVER ever give a drug that we even thought had a chance of causing harm to a pregnant woman. Let alone just jack’em up with a genetic juice which we now know is absolutely, positively dangerous.

It is atrocious what’s going on right now and we can’t be more alarmed. I think any woman listening to this, who has any ounce of common sense, ought to absolutely talk to every other woman – and you know what? Have some real conversations with your obstetrician. Give them a phone call. Send an email. And say, ‘Listen. Wake up. What are you doing right here, right now? That’s causing harm.’

Worldwide distrust | Grandparents demanding grandchildren to get vaccinated

Mike Adams @37:22: “And now along with doctors at one point waking up, as you were just describing, do you think that there’s also a very real risk that… when all of this eventually comes out, and looking back on it that the public’s faith in the entire institution of medicine and science, may be so fractured that at that point the public may refuse to even consider helpful interventions and therapies that could save lives. Because all of it may be discredited at some point depending on how big this thing goes.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Right. So with things are really going off the rails, so public […] doesn’t trust the media, doesn’t trust the public agencies, doesn’t trust their doctors or doctor groups, and they don’t trust each other! They don’t trust – do you know right now that there are grandparents that say that they won’t see their grandchildren unless they’re vaccinated! So now they’re putting – and the grandparents are vaccinated. So now they’re putting the risk of blood clots and myocarditis and death onto their grandchildren and saying that they won’t see each other for Disney.

Colleges mandating vaccines for students while faculty (and the FDA/CDC/NIH) are not taking it.

Peter McCullough @38:25: Do you know we have 9% of colleges that are mandating the investigational vaccines. So they’re actually mandating their student bodies participate in research with this, which is openly dangerous biological products. They have no ability to help these youngsters. And you know in many of these colleges: there’s no policy, there’s no exemption process.

And do you know that in many of these colleges their faculties aren’t taking it! Now the FDA, the CDC and the NIH, they’re not taking the vaccine! They’re not taking it! And the faculty’s not taking it! So they’re going to make the students take it under duress!

So the vaccine has been propagandized and now socially weaponized so the universities can hurt the student population! Just like the obstetricians are hurting their patients. Like the grandparents are hurting their grandchildren.

Mike, something is REALLY disturbing; wrong. And there are so many players in this.

The need for integrity, courage, principles… and justice.

Mike Adams @39:23: “Well said, and we’re up against the time here, I mean, we can continue to talk. Maybe, hopefully you can come back and join us again but, I just want to say, the people watching this, thank you for your integrity. And thank you for your courage but also for sticking to your principles. You want evidence, you want to show efficacy, you want to reduce risk and save lives. And that’s what every doctor should be in America, and somehow that – that seems like it’s lost. And that’s what freaks people out as much covid. It’s that ‘who can we trust anymore?’

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Well, I gotta tell you, if there’s ever a time for courage, for integrity, for commitment to principles of medical ethics, and commitment to biomedical science, and lastly, a commitment to justice, now is the time. And listen, if that’s my role, and that’s your role, that’s our role that we’re serving right now. And America needs to get behind its heroes. Because we’ve got a long uphill battle. There is a disturbing trance that is basically like a black cloud over the world right now. And we’re trying to find a way out. There’s so much harm and suffering going on, and NONE of it is needed.”

Mike Adams: “And I’ll tell you, and you are one of the bright points of light in this darkness, and the AAPS, this is a shining moment for that organization. They are so right, they – I don’t even know what to say, but we’re going to interview, I think, other prominent people from the AAPS because their voices are desperately needed right now to save lives and end human suffering. And also help stop this pandemic.

So, thank you Dr. McCullough. It’s an honor to have you on. I really enjoyed this conversation. You’re a wonderful person; I really honor your knowledge and your courage. Thank you.”

Dr. Peter McCullough: “Thanks Mike. Great interview.”

Thank you to everyone reading and/or watching the interview. Please help spread the word and stay informed. Research is incredibly important, especially in these uncertain times and with the incredible amount of propaganda and deliberate media suppression.

Thank you to everyone exposing these corruptions.

CDC, FDA Prepare Mass Distribution of a Merck/Sanofi Six-in-One Vaccine for Kids, Turning Blind Eye to Safety Signals

Egregious oversteps endangering children’s lives.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The FDA approved Vaxelis in late 2018, but only now is the shot being readied for widespread distribution — in Europe, where infants have been given six-in-one vaccines for years (including Vaxelis since 2016), the vaccines have been associated with reports of sudden infant death.

Since the mid-1980s, the number of childhood shots on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine schedule has more than quadrupled. When parents express reluctance about turning their little ones into perpetual pin cushions, drug makers and doctors have a ready answer — combination vaccines that “simplify” the schedule by decreasing the number of injections administered.

This month marks the U.S. launch of the Merck/Sanofi joint-venture vaccine, Vaxelis, a six-in-one (hexavalent) combination vaccine that contains diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis (DTaP) components as well as components said to protect against polio, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and hepatitis B.

Public health officials optimistically believe that bundling all of these components into one shot will help close noncompliance loopholes and increase the likelihood that children will complete “all recommended vaccinations.”

Though Vaxelis is the nation’s first hexavalent injection, it joins other four- or five-in-one vaccines already on the CDC schedule. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vaxelis in late 2018 — as a three-dose series for 2-, 4- and 6-month-old infants — but it is only now, two-and-a-half years later, that the shot is being readied for widespread distribution.

Warning signs were ignored

There are numerous warning signs that potent all-in-one vaccines are too much for immature immune systems to handle. Concerning safety signals have emerged not just for hexavalent but also pentavalent (five-in-one) vaccines.

In Europe, where infants have been given hexavalent vaccines for some years (including Vaxelis since 2016), the formulations have produced many troubling reports of sudden infant death.

Absurdly, none of the clinical studies assessing Vaxelis safety and efficacy conducted fair comparisons against an inert placebo. Instead, in the two U.S. clinical trials for Vaxelis, not only did investigators compare infants receiving Vaxelis to babies who received Sanofi’s five-in-one Pentacel — but babies in both groups also received rotavirus and pneumococcal vaccines at the same time!

In this context, the CDC’s sales pitch to the public — and its claims that side effects are “usually mild” — cannot be considered credible.

Here are some of the other facts missing from the CDC’s communications:

  • In the two U.S. trials six infants died (slide #27) in the Vaxelis group (some after receiving just one dose); one infant also died in the “control” group that received five-in-one vaccines.
  • All six Vaxelis recipients died within six weeks of vaccination. This timing matches other published accounts of infant deaths “clustering” following hexavalent vaccination.
  • The reported causes of death for the infants who received Vaxelis included asphyxia, sepsis, fluid in the brain and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). These outcomes correspond to the types of adverse events reported following hexavalent vaccination in Europe.
  • Package inserts for other vaccines on the CDC schedule list similar causes of death, suggesting these fatal Vaxelis outcomes are plausibly associated with vaccination.
  • In the clinical trials, the rate of fever was notably higher in Vaxelis recipients even when compared to children receiving five-in-one vaccines (47% vs. 34%).

Juicing vaccine sales

In the no-liability context enjoyed by vaccine makers in the U.S., combination vaccines are already quite popular. In fact, market watchers and health economists praise the jumbo shots as being a catalyst for positive industry trends and a “key to commercial success.”

 

Thus, financial analysts expect Vaxelis to “garner significant patient share following its [U.S.] launch” — predicting that it will account for almost a third of U.S. DTaP vaccinations by 2028 — or $841 million in annual sales.

These predictions represent good news for Merck and Sanofi, two of the “big four” pharma giants that dominate the childhood vaccine market in the United States. Merck is already doing a booming vaccine business, recently reporting annual sales growth of 14.8% for its pneumococcal vaccine (Pneumovax 23) and 5.4% for its human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil-9.

However, Merck also faces proliferating Gardasil-related lawsuits — including legal actions alleging that the company knew about and ignored life-changing adverse events from the get-go, many of which (when not fatal) have involved autoimmunity and chronic pain. In fact, before the advent of emergency use COVID vaccines (responsible for an alarming escalation of vaccine-related adverse events), Gardasil had had “more side effects reported than all other vaccines combined.”

Sanofi, too, is embroiled in thousands of lawsuits worldwide — notably for its disastrous and sometimes fatal dengue vaccine. As with Merck, this has not dampened overall vaccine sales growth, which continues its strong upward trajectory, likely to be further strengthened by the U.S. Vaxelis rollout.

Although Sanofi has not been a front-runner in the COVID vaccine race, the company is currently running clinical trials for messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines for both COVID and seasonal influenza.

Aluminum secrecy and grandfathered ingredients

Merck’s proprietary, “super-powered” aluminum adjuvant — amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) — which is believed to play a significant role in Gardasil’s risk profile, is also present in Vaxelis.

After Merck developed AAHS, it began to “preferentially” feature AAHS in its vaccines even though, as Danish scientists outlined last year, the company appears to have disregarded procedures ordinarily required for approval of new adjuvants.

According to the Danes, at the time AAHS appeared, it represented a “new type of aluminium adjuvant with excipients that [had] not been used earlier in [European Medicines Agency] authorised vaccines.” It should have been — but apparently was not — tested against an inert placebo. For this and other reasons, the Danish scientists question the ethical underpinnings of the Gardasil clinical trials.

In noting that Merck also “seems to have prevented independent studies of AAHS,” the Danes repeated a critique aired by world-famous aluminum expert Christopher Exley in 2018. In an extensive discussion of different aluminum-based adjuvants and their immunological mechanisms of action, Exley and co-authors emphasized the importance of studying aluminum adjuvants one by one, as each is “chemically and biologically dissimilar with concomitantly potentially distinct roles in vaccine-related adverse events.”

Concerningly, the Vaxelis liquid suspension is adjuvanted onto not just AAHS, but also another aluminum adjuvant — aluminum phosphate). The package insert disingenuously shorthands the combination of adjuvants as “aluminum salts.”

How this double whammy of aluminum (319 micrograms per vaccine dose) interacts with the vaccine’s six antigens, or Vaxelis’s numerous other ingredients, or the heavy aluminum load in other childhood vaccines is largely unknown.

According to the Vaxelis package insert, the vaccine also includes: polysorbate 80 (an ingredient flagged for its propensity to induce hypersensitivity reactions); glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde (problematic chemicals deemed necessary to inactivate pertussis toxin); bovine serum albumin (often harvested from bovine fetuses when female cows are found to be pregnant at slaughter); three different antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin and polymyxin B); ammonium thiocyanate (also a rust inhibitor, weedkiller and defoliant); and yeast protein (associated, notably in hepatitis B vaccines, with autoimmune reactions).

Regulatory loopholes allow manufacturers to “grandfather” ingredients into new vaccines if the components are already present in other licensed vaccines — regardless of how inadequate the original safety testing may have been.

Thus, Merck and Sanofi perceived no need to test Vaxelis for DNA-damaging or cancer-causing effects, and conducted no studies of the ingredients’ pharmokinetics (i.e., how the substances move “into, through, and out of the body”).

The main cautionary note sounded in the meager Vaxelis patient information sheet is to not give Vaxelis to children if they are “allergic to any of the ingredients.”

For thee and thee … but not for me?

The CDC seems to be particularly interested in ensuring that poor and non-white children get Vaxelis. The agency began laying the groundwork to offer Vaxelis through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) Program — the agency’s vaccine program for the poor — over two years ago, in March 2019.

In September of that year, the CDC followed up with an affirmative vote. Public health departments have been promoting Vaxelis to participating VFC providers since early June 2021.

At its September 2019 meeting, CDC outlined another topic deemed important for discussion in the near future — raising the issue of whether Vaxelis should be “preferentially recommended” for the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) pediatric population.

The tenuous rationale, according to the meeting notes, was because, “in the pre-vaccine era” (more than 35 years ago), “Hib disease occurred at a younger age among the AI/AN population compared to the general population.”

Wave of the future?

Judging from its website, the CDC perceives combination vaccines to be the wave of the future, and has signaled its strong endorsement of Vaxelis by incorporating the new vaccine into its 2021 vaccine schedule.

As if exposure to six antigens were not enough, FDA and CDC also say it is okay for healthcare providers to administer the six-in-one shot at the same time as other vaccines.

These agencies’ characterization of the Vaxelis safety profile as “acceptable” indicates they have either not done their due diligence, or are willing to accept a high level of collateral damage in exchange for the “convenience” of six-in-one shots.

However, as the “overwhelmed by guilt” parents of COVID-vaccine-injured teens are increasingly finding out, convenience is poor consolation for life-changing or life-threatening adverse outcomes.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from CHD

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Get an Earful

Vernon Coleman Speech at the London Worldwide Freedom Rally | July 24, 2021 - Dr. Vernon Coleman exposing COVID/vaccine corruption.
Federal Lawsuit Seeks Immediate Halt of COVID Vaccines, Cites Whistleblower Testimony Claiming CDC is Under-Counting Vaccine Deaths - America's Frontline Doctors addressing the fraudulent use of the EUA for COVID vaccines.
Might COVID Injections Reduce Lifespan? - "Yeadon, Montagnier, Zelenko and others are raising concerns about global genocide."
Scam of the Medical Industry and a Depopulation Agenda Revealed at the ITNJ - Robert O. Young's Testimony at the International Tribunal of Natural Justice
COVID Presenting Same Exact Symptoms as… THE COMMON COLD - We have been lied to on a MASSIVE SCALE; all to enforce the vaccine on us.
NOT ON THE BEEB: Dr. T | Mask, Swabs, ‘Vaccine’, Magnetism & Genocide [Full Transcript] - Dr. T proposes a hypothesis that involves hydrogel and EMF.

Genesis 16: Hagar and Ishmael

Earnest Examination

This series is presented as an honest, sincere look into the study of the Bible with my own personal theories, opinions, comments and that of others’ insights and research into what the verses could mean. I cannot claim one way or another that everything that I am stating is fact and the true meaning of what is meant in these verses.

To lay it out in a way that I can manage, I have highlighted the texts of verses that I either don’t understand or have a comment or question about in yellow. And the comments I’ve left beneath it will be of a smaller font and using brown text.

I would love it if you’d join me in this journey and if you have any insights and/or knowledge of these chapters/verses etc., please feel free to share with me and the other readers. Any chance to get a clearer understanding of the Bible and Jesus Christ would be welcomed with open arms.

Version used is from (KJV) Genesis 16

1 Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

It’s interesting how even though Abram trusted in the Lord that he will have descendants that come from his own body, it did not occur to him that it would come from his own wife, Sarai. Instead, because Sarai thought that she could not bear children, then his descendants would have to come from someone else. Thereby offering up her handmaid so that her husband could have children through his bloodline. Was this planned by God all along? If God is omnipresent and omniscient, then He would already know that this is how the story is going to play out.
3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.
4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.
I do want to make another point here, about who many believe wrote Genesis to begin with. Of course this question brings up many debates, but the person most referenced as having written Genesis is Moses. Whether that be from word of mouth and passed down traditions and tales, or whether perhaps he had the testimony dictated to him by an angel of the Lord, or the Lord Himself, it is interesting that a lot of these passed down tales give us an inner look into the emotions and feelings of others. Was there written dictation that Hagar began to hate her mistress? Was there proof of some sort that there was animosity brewing between the two because Hagar felt herself better than Sarai because she can conceive and Sarai couldn’t? And this brings into question how these texts could have been written with the knowledge of what people were feeling and thinking. Yes, God would be able to know how everyone’s feeling, so could it be possible that whoever did write Genesis gets insights into everyone’s thoughts and feelings? And if certain chapters were dictated, how can we be, FOR SURE, that the dictation came from an angel of the Lord, or the Lord Himself? Or even if they came from visions or dreams? How can we be sure that these visions/dreams/etc. were not misconstrued?
I also want to bring up the emotion of Hagar herself for her thoughts of pride for being able to conceive and thinking herself better than someone else because of this. I don’t want to judge this characteristic, because I don’t know what’s going on in her mind/thoughts, but thought it was an interesting perspective. Of course this particular version of the text does not reference Hagar’s complete feelings to Sarai like others do, like the NIV for instance. The NIV gives a little more context to this relationship.

5 And Sarai said unto Abram, My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.
6 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
Here is another reference to Sarai and Hagar’s relationship, which was never brought up before Hagar became pregnant with Abram’s child. And another wrongdoing, even though it was Sarai’s idea to have Hagar become Abram’s wife as well specifically to have children through her. I also want to make note that at this point, it doesn’t seem as if the Lord has given any instruction as to how to live one’s life. The 10 commandments were not created yet, and the word Love has not even been mentioned yet other than in reference to procreation as can be seen in NIV Genesis 4. In fact, it won’t be mentioned for a few more chapters, and even in that context, as we will see, I have issues with.
So at this point in the Bible, it would appear that people have no way of knowing how to treat each other. We can see such disrespect coming from Hagar to Sarai, and Sarai to Hagar, with not a mention of compassion or kindness. In fact, the last few chapters dealt with gain as far as land and wealth and bloodlines. It’s fascinating that Love has not even been a component yet. Even at the creation of Adam and Eve and the love of a husband and wife, or the love for their children.

7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.

The phrase “the angel of the Lord” grabs my attention and to me, implies that this angel is special in some way. Why “THE” angel? Not “an” angel? Why is there this implication that it is not just a “random” angel of the Lord that came to Hagar, but the angel of the Lord? What does this mean? Does this angel have some sort of significance? There are indications of heirarchies within the angelic/heavenly realm, so does this angel hold a particular importance or certain leadership quality that others angels wouldn’t?
9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
10 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.
This gives me an even deeper impression that this angel, for some reason, holds more weight than the others. Why would this angel specifically say, “I will multiply thy seed”? Wouldn’t that be something that the Lord would say? If the angel is speaking for the Lord, then the wording, I would think, would be more like, “The Lord will multiply thy seed”. Not I, as in the angel itself.
11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Just a quick note, “Ishmael” means “God listens.” or “God will hear.” or similar variants to this.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
So why would this be? This sounds like more of a curse than a blessing. Is this “angel of the Lord” merely warning Hagar that this is how her son will be considered? Is it just what was in Ishmael’s destiny? There are theories that Ishmael’s descendants are known today as the Muslims, or Arabs, Arabian Muslims, with some history provided by Muhammad/Quran.
So another question I have is, if the angel never mentioned that Ishmael would grow up to be at odds with every man, would this prophecy still play out as told? Did the angel’s prophetic warning have anything to do with how Hagar raised Ishmael, with the expectation that he would be against others and others against him? Did the angel set the precedent with this foretelling?

13 And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?
Hm… now I’m really confused. The angel of the Lord was speaking to Hagar… so why is this verse now considering him the Lord? And if this was the angel of the Lord, then surely the text would clearly imply again “the angel of the Lord”. Not “name of the Lord that spake unto her.” Unless it is indicating that by being addressed by this angel, she realizes that Thou God, meaning the angel’s God, and thus God Himself, has seen her in her distress and is appealing to her to return to Sarai even amidst all of the hostility. It still does not explain though why in this verse the angel is considered the Lord… Could “the angel of the Lord” be the Holy Spirit? Therefore indeed a significant part of God? Or perhaps as some theories speculate, could it be the Christ Consciousness before Jesus Christ was incarnate? Even so, the strange prediction that Ishmael will play a substantial role in his dealings with other mankind sets an interesting and perplexing anecdote, as if setting the stage for what is to come.
14 Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.
15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

Throughout this chapter, I have to bring up again how interesting it is that the one message that Jesus Christ teaches, of Love to God and to each other, has not been mentioned yet. In fact, like I stated above, Love is not even a factor and has not been mentioned in Genesis yet, from Adam and Eve’s creation, to Abram’s timeline, 2,000 years since the beginning, according to the Bible. Has this concept, this feeling, not have even manifested yet? Are humans at this point of time just multiplying out of duty to keep one’s heritage/bloodline going? We can see how people have treated each other throughout all of this, with brother against brother, son against father, woman against woman due to pride, jealousy, envy, etc., etc., etc. I think Love will be a specific recurring topic that I will keep a very close eye on going forward.

 

As usual, I want to reiterate that some of my thoughts and theories may be way off base, and I also research some other things on the side as well to try and get a broader understanding of what I’m reading, so please bear with me, or, even better, if you have insights that bring more light to these verses, please let me know.

I enjoy bouncing off theories and theology off of each other and love to hear other people’s perspectives on things. Thank you for reading and I look forward to hearing from you!