Home Corona Time To Consider a Manslaughter Charge for Persons Hiding the Vax Information

Time To Consider a Manslaughter Charge for Persons Hiding the Vax Information

52

Peter A McCullough, MDPeter A McCullough, MD, Photo: theTexanNews.com

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Are Dr McCullough’s de-credentializers committing manslaughter? In this article, I argue that persons who de-register a doctor for speaking truth against Pfizer vaccine may be charged with a crime.

It is now 31 months since the WHO declared an emergency (in March 2020), leading to meaningless lockdowns and face masks, worthless social distancing, and the harmful vaccinating of billions of people worldwide. Billions!

My attempt to get an injunction against mandatory vaccination, Maxwell v Secretary of Defense et al., got as far as the US Court of Appeals in Boston. I lost the case on the usual ground — “lack of standing.”

FDA Gave Emergency Use Authorization

A splendidly effective cure for Covid, ivermectin (an anti-parasitic) was taken off the market. The likely cause for that was to help the FDA arrange “emergency usage authorization” — EUA — for the vaccine. EUA requires that no other treatment is available. Ivermectin had been in use for decades, and it was used successfully against Covid, early on — withdrawing it is inexcusable. (This ivermectin scandal remains mostly under the radar.)

Who am I to judge the value of the vaccine? I do have some means of making indirect judgment (don’t you?) but it’s not needed, as Big Pharma itself has admitted to the harms done. During the first two and a half months of Pfizer’s Covid vaccinations, up until February 2022, Pfizer received reports of thousands of deaths and millions of adverse effects, following the jab.

The governments of the US and the UK have published similar figures for that period. These come from doctors or patients who make a report, but many do not report, so the true figure is even higher.

Dr Peter McCullough

Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, of Texas is a cardiologist and epidemiologist with a strong record of clinical success and has authored many journal articles. He has spoken out about the dangers of the vaccine.

Note: shouldn’t we just call it “speaking,” not “speaking out”? And since when is it a bad thing to warn the public, or one’s own patients, of danger of death and injury? That sort of thing is required to be printed on the back of a product’s package, isn’t it?

As of October 28, 2022, as reported by journalist Steve Kirsch, Dr Peter A McCullough has been stripped of four of his credentials: two of his Board Certifications, and his editorship of two journals. Baylor University and Hospital did nothing to come to his defense.

The reason given for the credential-stripping is that McCullough is spreading misinformation or disinformation. Well, he’s not doing that. As I just said, the data is official as to the harmfulness of the Covid vaccine. As for the opposite side of the story, the vaccine’s usefulness, it hasn’t been demonstrated. Rather the opposite: most people recently hospitalized for Covid are fully vaccinated!

I hereby opine that the persons and/or organizations who are taking away Peter McCullough’s credentials are committing manslaughter. I assume many persons, had they got wind of the truth of the Pfizer jabs, would have refused to be jabbed. His speaking out could save lives.

Manslaughter is a lesser charge than homicide. For homicide you must have intent to kill. While I don’t rule out that homicide, too, is involved in the goings on of this pandemic, for now I’m only discussing manslaughter.

Criminal Law

So let’s look at the law of manslaughter in Texas. (Note: I don’t know if the people who are de-credentialing McCullough are all within the jurisdiction of Texas, but that state’s law is pretty standard.)

It is easy to find, just by googling “Texas, law, manslaughter.” And here it is:

“Texas Penal Code Sec. 19.04 Manslaughter. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.”

It’s common for a person to be charged with “involuntary” manslaughter if they cause a fatal car crash while drunk. But it can also be voluntary. The rule for manslaughter is that you did not intend to kill, yet your negligence or recklessness resulted in someone’s death. The case that a prosecutor could make is that anyone who deliberately forbids a doctor to give good, solid information to a patient may thereby harm her.

So, first of all, the prosecutor would need to show that the information which “the defendants” want McCullough to shut up about, is good, solid information. As I mentioned, the Pfizer information is about as solid as you can get, and the Party giving it — Pfizer — is speaking “against interest.” In law, that makes the information more credible than self-serving testimony.

The defendants would have to show that they didn’t “recklessly cause the death of an individual.” Come to think of it, since less than a week has passed since McCullough lost his credentials (I am writing this on November 1, 2022), no person has probably yet died from McCullough’s de-credentialling in particular. So let’s search for doctors who were similarly situated to him.

The Prosecuting of De-credentializers

We can look at doctors whose de-credentializing consisted of a revocation of their license to practice medicine. They had refused to obey such authorities as WHO or the AMA. (People think doctors are obeying the CDC, but that entity derives its ability to influence from each state’s laws. Often it has to do with the state AMA determining “best practice.”)

The now-deregistered doctors presumably decided it was more ethical to follow normal protocols of treating the sick, perhaps by not giving unnecessary vaccinations, or by prescribing the drug ivermectin.

(As an aside, in New Hampshire, in 2022, both Houses of the state legislature voted to approve the dispensing of ivermectin as over-the-counter medicine. But the Republican governor, Chris Sununu, inexplicably vetoed it.)

Note that I am claiming that the persons who took away those doctors’ ability to give good advice are the ones to be charged with manslaughter, not the doctors themselves. As for the many doctors and nurses who did inject people with a very questionable vaccine, they too may be guilty of manslaughter or even of homicide, but that’s not my focus in this article.

I believe many doctors around the country gave in too easily to bad instructions from their local licensing boards (and many did so because they are the employees of hospitals). Thousands of doctors walked away from the principles they were trained with.

They knew that quarantining is what you do to sick people, not well people. They also knew — all of them — that a face mask does not stop transmission. They also knew that the rule for marketing a new drug is that a long trial is first needed, and that the kinds of people likely to take that drug, e.g., pregnant women. must be included in the trial.

Note: When I say “vaccination,” I’m referring to what’s in the vial from Pfizer or Moderna. They were not real vaccines; it is fully agreed that this material is intended to carry out its mission by changing the patient’s DNA — it’s called “gene therapy.”

Possibly ‘tech’ was also added to the vaccines to make us targetable by electronics, but none of that need to be argued by our prosecutor today. We are talking about vaccines causing death.

Were Good Doctors Reckless?

Manslaughter is a felony, which means there will be a prison sentence and possibly a fine. Aren’t there many conscientious, kind doctors who thought they were doing the right thing? Yes, but the law of manslaughter is about the death, not about the intention. (If there was intention, it is murder.)

As doctors, and even just as Americans, they knew that the way to get at truth is open debate, not suppression of criticism. Nothing in their training would have prepared them for their bosses’ behavior regarding the 2020 pandemic or the 2021 vaccination. And do you recall the wholly fake PCR test for Covid? (Allegedly free, but taxpayer funded.)

Of course all doctors understood, almost by second nature, that if a person has only a slight chance of getting a fatal round of such-and-such a disease, you don’t go at her with a highly risky preventative.

Conclusion

We have to start somewhere. The overall picture, and projections for the next five years, is way worse than what this article has covered. As far as I know, we have big corporations in America whose goal is to harm or kill Americans. That’s not something we grew up expecting to ever have to contemplate. It’s weird, but I say let’s not allow the weirdness of it to reduce our brain to cotton batten.

It doesn’t embarrass me to test the water with lawsuits. Even if the courts are corrupt, I think we should nonetheless use their formalities. It is satisfying to argue one’s case in keeping with good law.

A doctor who has been prevented from saving lives, owing to interference by Big Pharma, or media or government or health insurance companies, can step up to the plate. Why do we have a jurisprudence of the crime of manslaughter if everyone is to be too shy to use it?

One more thing: It may seem attractive to go for the Big Boys. I dream of it myself. But most citizens would not be able to imagine it. We can start by picking some low-hanging fruit. Even a single court ruling, on the matter discussed here, would have immediate repercussions all over the place. Additionally, it would help affirm free speech.

SHARE

52 COMMENTS

      • Dr Peter Bay is back, remember him making a scene in the doctor’s conference a few weeks ago, now has a court case and expounds on the HOAX OUTFIT APHRA who operate out of a Victorian office using QUEENSLAND law ( no upper house so what Anasty P. says, goes ), and all of it in conflict with the Federal Constitution, these people are all treasonous criminals bluffing all the way.
        Maria Zeee does it again (Nov 2)
        https://zeeemedia.com/

        • Decades ago there used to be a movement in Victoria called “Shed a Tier” to remove the upper house but it fizzled out. The upper house as Paul Keating likes to call “Unrepresentative Swill”. All these communists are the same, they suck everyone in with their socialist fair go while selling us out to Globalists.

  2. I have three points to bring up.
    1) Why is that an American citizen does not have “standing” in your courts. I would have thought that anything that affects any citizen’s health or rights would have “standing” It appears to me that this is just an excuse for the judges not to hold court on a particular matter.
    2) If a relatively uneducated being such as myself was able to work out that there was no pandemic, in this case, Covid-19 by April 2020 and the “vaccines” before being rolled out were known to be dangerous, how is it that the so-called well educated in our societies didn’t have the nous to realise the truth?
    3) In any other situation if your employer told you to kill or maim another, would you follow orders? If you are a sensible and moral being the answer would be no. But doctors and nurses did exactly that.

    • I would have thought the “standing” goes to the fact that a criminal prosecution, by definition, is some State or Federal authority or other taking an individual to task about something or other
      And a civil lawsuit, by definition, is an individual or group taking another individual or group to task re some alleged personal or group injury or other

      Or am I missing something ?

  3. Well done Dr Yeadon. But I would hope that what you suggest is not the only punishment handed out to these criminals and others. I would also suggest that those inventing these evil technologies in labs or elsewhere around the world should also be brought to justice.

    • Agreed 100%. All who knowingly, i.e. anyone and everyone who realized the clear and present dangers associated with the ingredients of the jab, and still endorsed or supported the idea of anyone or everyone getting the COVID’ jab was a ‘good’ idea, should be formally charged with at least Manslaughter. This charge MUST SURELY be applied to Dr. Fauci and Pfizer, J & J, Astra Zeneca et al.

  4. According to Dr Hodkinson’s contact in the insurance industry as an analysis, there are probably 20 million deaths already from the Covid-19 shots and possibly 2 billion injuries from the same world wide. These figures discount those with previous co-morbidities. As time progresses these figures will continue to climb even without more booster shots being taken.

  5. Mary:

    I’m not a lawyer but here is my thinking:

    For “Standing”, you have to have, as plaintiffs, patients (of Dr. McCullough or any named doctor) who maintain that they were directly harmed by his/her absence. And the court may require that those patients establish that they previously had been helped, in a major way, by that doctor, before his/her delicensing (etc.), OR that they — more specifically — were “on the road to recovery” from a major (preferably life-threatening) illness, prior to the doctor’s delicensing, and that they have since “gone downhill” as a direct result of his/her being barred from treating the patient.
    Whether the case is based on one patient, if the case is properly positioned, it might succeed — but, might a class-action suit — if the above conditions are met — have a better chance of succeeding?
    Also, add to that approach a different tack. I.e., I recall that sometime midway though “the pandemic”, the CDC (or the FDA?) CHANGED THE DEFINITION of the word “vaccine”, ostensibly because the PREVIOUS definition DIDN’T FIT THE NEW CIRCUMSTANCES. That change means that UNDER THE PREVIOUS DEFINITION — which was OFFICIALLY IN EFFECT when the EUA was issued (and for a long time after) — what the Government was CALLING a “VACCINE” WAS NOT A “VACCINE” ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN OFFICIAL DEFINITION AT THE TIME. So WHAT WAS THE GOVERNMENT — including Biden, Fauci, Walinsky, et al — PUSHING?

    My point is that in the law — ANY law — WORDS AND DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT. And, as you know, courts will come down HARD on how a word is used: cases have been THROWN OUT, or innocence or guilt have been decided, on the meaning of a SINGLE WORD.

    So, maybe a case can be built on this. Pick a potential defendant. Most likely off-limits is Biden, but maybe the leadership or decisionmakers at the FDA or the CDC — or medical licensing boards who delicensed (or threatened) doctors — based on on Government’s previous (or current) MISLEADING definitions of “vaccine”?

    As to the definition of “vaccine”, maybe you should TEAM-UP with WHISTLE-BLOWER & PHARMACEUTICAL INVESTIGATOR KAREN KINGSTON? She was just on THE STEW PETERS SHOW and she says (in effect) that she has blown the case against the v@x (and Pfizer) wide open: she says that she’s discovered in Pfizer’s (?) own documents that, from the beginning, these so-called v@ck/+zeenz were designed as electronic DNA-manipulation devices which did NOT fit the definition of “vaccine” AT ALL. And she, or maybe Stew, advanced the thesis that the lawsuits can now flow from this discovery. (Here’s the link: https://www.bitchute.com/video/d0kaFqI9nWWh/?list=notifications&randomize=false).
    And about the change of the “official” definition of “vaccine”: I would look into this question: did the change, whether by Merriam-Webster or by the Government, follow the LEGALLY DOCUMENTED RULES (if such CODIFIED RULES exist) for such a definition-change?
    And I would also ask the courts: Under which rules — rules that have a shifting foundation because medical definitions, such as the definition of v@ck/+zeen, are frequently changing — is the Licensing Board (or Hospital) threatening to delicense (etc.) the doctor based on what SOLID foundation? I.e., I would GO TO THE HEART OF THE ACCUSER’S REASONING and I would seek to show that their reasoning — at its core — is built on a foundation of shifting sands of POLITICALLY-INSPIRED AND OFTEN-CHANGING definitions INCLUDING A DEFINITION THAT MIGHT NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE DOCTOR BEING THREATENED.

    So, Mary, what do you think of my suggestions?

    • ABOUT MY ABOVE COMMENT:

      I had formatted that comment with NUMBERED SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS. But, as printed, the numbers DISAPPEARED and the paragraphs WERE KLUDGED TOGETHER, making it HARD TO READ. Sorry about that!

      • My experience is that the courts do not lack any skill for dealing with insufficient defintions.

        You can’t get blood from stainless steel.

  6. Nadal looks stressed and furtive and his hair falling out fast.
    The doctors must have pulled out a few blood clots and done whatever secretly nobody is talking and Nadal keeps saying he can’t predict what will happen and lives in hope. Nobody can say anything about injections, it would be blasphemy of the highest order.
    It seems he can’t maintain his intensity and talking about his age which is just gone 36. ( Djokovic 35.5 )

  7. This August ‘22 write-up was posted on Gumshoe by JP at 12:38 pm today :

    “The Search for Poornima Wagh’s Claimed Ph.D.s………..Wagh is claiming dual Ph.D.s in virology and immunology, both granted  simultaneously by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in December 2016. These claimed advanced degrees — which would be a precious professional commodity — do not so much as appear on any CV or résumé that we have found. Further, Wagh claims to be unemployed.
    In a recent interview with Planet Waves FM, Wagh hedged on admitting the exact title of her claimed doctoral thesis, only giving its approximate topic — “malaria and HIV co-infection.” She said this one paper was the basis of not one but two Ph.D. degrees, which she claims were both awarded in December 2016.
    But after exhaustive searches over the past six weeks, not one reference to her doctoral credentials can be found. All that exists is a CV which claims undergraduate work and a master’s degree in finance, and résumés which claim she has taken undergrad science courses and worked in laboratories as a technician. However, deeper investigation has revealed that her bachelor’s degree from Salisbury was really in liberal studies, not in finance.
    Regarding access to her claimed doctoral thesis, Wagh told Planet Waves FM, “It should be available in the library.”
    “They are downloadable as documents,” agreed Dr. Kevin Corbett of London, who did his doctoral work on HIV testing and its sociological impact, and has chaired the oral examinations for several Ph.D. candidates. He is familiar with the British system of advanced education, in which he has participated for a generation. Hear the full interview.

    The Thesis Should be in the British Library……………’Normally, when you gain the award in the UK of a Ph.D, the thesis or both theses will be available on an archive catalog, usually within the college archive or online archive and/or within the British Library’s online archive,’ Corbett added. 
    ‘I was very interested in reading them but I actually couldn’t find them listed. And other people have tried to find them as well,’ he added.
    No record of her thesis or her name can be found in the British Library, which is the repository of all doctoral dissertations and theses in England. Corbett said he searched both by her name, and for all papers dealing with the topics of both malaria and HIV, and found nothing associated with her.
    “It is quite important to have a look at this,” he added, saying that just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean that the thesis does not exist. “One thing is certain, which is that you don’t earn two Ph.D.s with only one thesis. The same thesis couldn’t have been used for two Viva Voce exams. Impossible.” The Viva Voce — Latin for ‘live voice’ — is the in-person oral committee examination where a doctoral candidate defends their thesis.
    Additionally, Planet Waves FM could find no record of any peer-reviewed publications by “Dr. Poornima Wagh,” or any other scientific paper anywhere that cited her work.“
    https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/charlatans-web

    I’d have thought that faking creds was a criminal offence; how come she hasn’t been prosecuted accordingly?
    Because she’s serving a certain purpose perhaps?

    • DR POORNIMA WAGH UNDER TALMUDIC PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTACK
      TheTaoOfAnarchy
      Sep 2

      https://thetaoofanarchy.substack.com/p/dr-poornima-wagh-under-talmudic-psychological

      Folks, as far as I am concerned with my own experiences, Dr Poornima Wagh has been under Talmudic psychological assaults with physical threatening to her Family in India. They want to draw her down, to de-energize her, to exhaust her with incremental accusations and ad-hominem attacks. I do suspect very much that THEY even threatened her family in India (her father is working for Pfizer). Ultimately THEY want to silence her with everything THEY “have” on her and her family !

      This attack is the proof of what she has said is correct and She alone is MORE so dangerous to THEM and has caused more damages to THEM than others would have (e.g Dr Lanka, Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey etc). She and her family KNOW Pfizer personally!)
      Remember the Jewish ambush of Helen Thomas?

      This attack also proves that White American Goyim are truly stupid! They deserve those Talmudic Jewish rulers!

      As I said in previous posts of Dr Poornima Wagh Interviews:
      Quote:
      -No wonder those in so-called “truth movement” and “health freedom” have been trying to stab her back! Because, unlike them, she, Dr Poornima Wagh, has NO HIDDEN AGENDA except scientific facts.
      Well … watch, listen, and come to your own conclusion.

      These two remarkable women do not need any more praising words from anyone!

      Anyway, THEY “fact check” her and rumored she was fake because she is brown! If she were Jewish then it’s ok even if she is a “self-hate black sheep”…. Remember the Jewish genius Elizabeth Holmes and the “great” Theranos?

      I just “wonder” how DARE a WOMAN and BROWN be so intelligent and so courage and so conscientious in the world of “chosen people” which is well served by white supremacist servants? 🙂 🙂 🙂

      Well, those fucking “chosen people” have cheated and made all the frauds and plagiarism all the way to the Nobel Prize!

      Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, all the criminals of so-called “vaccine inventors”…e.g Salt etc..
      Indeed, especially these chosen crooks are “excellent” in finance and politics … No wonder, that’s why!

      But I don’t blame the very minority chosen crooks. I did give these crooks credits for such unprecedented unique “achievement.” They got to the top of all the West, because all the Europeans are so stupid and have become a bunch of cowards! They knew those chosen crooks shitting on their heads by fraud, but are so fearful of them and DARE NOT do a thing to take back their society at all! They vent their inferior complex all on the blacks and browns and yellows instead!
      End Quotes

      For me, I don’t really care who or what she is. But WHAT she discussed about the Covid19 fraud is true! I did DOUBLE CHECK WHAT SHE HAS PRESENTED about “virus” and the imagined “SARSCOV2” and the Talmudic depopulation PLan, which are very consistent with all the information that other groups such as the group of Dr Lanka, Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey has been presenting . Dr Poornima Wagh even has given more details!

      Last but not least, the possibility of her being a SHILL is extremely small. But if she was, then she must have been a NEW PERFECT BREED of Cass Sunstein SHILL Project! A very brilliant SHILL indeed!

      -Please, take a rest Dr Poornima Wagh. I know and I do understand where you are now. I am sure that your whole Family in India has been threatened. It’s too much for a lone woman in your situation! I know because I “been there done that.” That’s the price and the road one must take to fight such evil power and its governments. There is no exception!

      I do agree that YOU DON’T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING! If they recognize what you presented are facts then good for them. Otherwise keep swallowing shit from the Government and its Talmudic Jewish masters!

      What you said is on the public records. All the “smart people” should have questioned and scrutinize
      the fucking Talmudic Jews and their governments officials instead!”

  11. Pete McCulloch keeps talking as if there is a real “virus”.

    There are “prizes” or awards for anyone who can produce real evidence that the so called “virus” really exists. Pete could be a half a million dollars more comfortable if he would just show the blardy virus that no one has ever been able to isolate.

  13. Dearly Beloved Gumshoers, I often find (do you?) that the “trending” article at top of page brings us to something very relevant, including maybe in the Comments section. A few minutes ago (but they disapper fast) there was a trending article “Proptective Parent Receives Letter fron Attorney Gneral, by Dee in 2018. Here is one of Dee’s comments:

    “If the public WERE ALLOWED TO KNOW what was going on, the government’s stability would be in jeopardy. There might be a few ministers left standing after the crimes were exposed — and especially the crime of facilitating the covering up of child abuse crimes. Many judges would be jailed too.”

    Looks lke it’s going to be Old Home Week in the klink.

    • Isn’t it true that in some places the mafia will do a hit on a judge, in that case judges would not like to jail mafioso whether pedo or otherwise but probably pedo would be even more high-risk. The hit being a bit like punching the referee. In that case sentencing could possibly be by AI.
      I see in El Slavador they built a big jail and put all the gangsters in there and now the country is running very well using bitcoin. Obviously this won’t last and the BIS operatives will find a way to take El Salvador down but they are too busy at the moment with BRICS and every other thing.
      More optimistically all of Latin America might break away and show the world how it’s done. The “age of leisure” should be here by now but instead of getting a fair deal we have all sorts of parasites leaching a plush existence from the daily grind of average bogans. Government is so busy implementing WEF policies that they get kickbacks for, that they have no extra time to fix anything, starting notably with the size of government.

  15. Before I forget to mention, I had a few weeks in Asia and in Bangkok they all had the little cough-cough, I got it too, they never had it any other time I went there, there were a few sneezes too, this would be Covid-22 Bangkok variant, and they were all wearing the little dust-masks, and they were all getting the little cough-cough.
    I would say the dust-masks slowed it down somewhat but what’s the point, compared to the criminal withholding of Ivermectin. The banning of the most appropriate medicine(s) is the most insane and demented action they could have taken to prove they are criminals, and this definition applies to many of their patented treatments.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.